D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) The writ petition was moved challenging the order impounding passport of the appellant/petitioner under Section 10(2)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 on the allegation that a criminal case is pending against the appellant/petitioner before a Criminal Court in India. The passport issued was sought to be impounded. The writ petition, however, was disposed of with certain directions by an order dated 14th August, 2003. In the said decision it was held that the criminal case seem to be pending before the Court against the appellant/petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the appellant/petitioner was injuncted from leaving India till the question is decided by the Regional Passport Officer. The scope of decision of the Regional Passport Officer was confined to the direction given in the said decision under appeal to the extent that the Passport Officer will give a hearing to the petitioner and arrive at a conclusion as to whether a criminal case is pending. The Passport Officer has already formed an opinion that a criminal case is pending. But at this stage, we do not propose to interfere with that part of the orden But the question remains whether the order of injunction passed in the said order would affect the right of the appellant/petitioner guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee learned Senior Counsel in support of this appeal and the application for interim order had contended that in case the Court holds otherwise even then the Court is empowered to relax the rules. He had impressed upon the Court that the appellant/petitioner is scheduled to hold a meeting at Russia in connection with his business for which he is to leave tomorrow. This meeting is very important and would inflict serious adverse consequence on his business.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee had contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to which we will be referring in detail hereafter, no criminal case is pending in any Court in India within the meaning of Section 10(2){e) empowering the Regional Passport Officer to impound the passport of the appellant/petitioner. He has referred to a decision by the Full Bench of this Court and also the decision of Supreme Court approving the decision by the High Court with regard to status of a charge-sheet. Relying on this decision, he points out that a proceeding is initiated or understood to have been initiated before a Criminal Court only when the cognizance of the police report is taken under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In the present case, the cognizance of the charge sheet taken beyond the period of limitation was quashed by this Court with the direction to reconsider the case as to whether the cognizance could be taken after condoning the delay. Therefore, according to him, on these very facts, it cannot be said that a proceeding is pending before a Criminal Court in India within the meaning of Section 10(2)(e) of the Passport Act. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner could not be restrained from exercising his right guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(g). It would then be affecting his such fundamental right without the sanction of law.;