New Delhi Sept 2(ILNS): The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation after hearing an application filed by the HN Wadhwa seeking the release of passport, accused of the offense punishable under Section 471 r/w Sections 465, 120, and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
The bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B. V. Nagarathna has heard the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Advocate Ambhoj Kumar Sinha and ASG Jayant Kumar Sood and provided 2 weeks time to Jayanta Kumar to seek instructions and ordered to list this matter after two weeks.
Learned Adv Ambhoj Kumar Sinha has submitted before the Court that under the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 no such NOC is required in such case. He argued that according to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 Passport can only be refused in the circumstances mentioned under section 6 of the Passport act. However, no provisions are applicable in the petitioners case.
According to Clause (e) and (f) of sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Passport Act the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: –
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to
imprisonment for not less than two years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
The Petitioner has argued before the Court that it is evident from the provisions that it is clearly not applicable in the petitioners case as according to the provision the sentence must be of 2 years and in the present case though petitioner was sentenced for two years which was reduced to 1 year by high court.
On the point of pendency of the case before the criminal court petitioner has argued that it is a matter of interpretation that does “criminal court” includes appellate court as well?
Petitioner has further submitted before the Court that petitioner is going through a mental suffering of loosing his only son in this pandemic and wants to visit his daughters one living on USA and another in Britain for emotional support.
Present Applicant along 4 others are convicted for various offences punishable under different provision or IPC as well as PC act 1988. M/s Tricon Hotel Private ltd. applied for term loan for construction and running a three star hotel. Loan was sanctioned of 69.75 lakhs. During investigation it was found out that the Tricon Hotel was not entitled to subsidy. However, Some of the payment made in the name of firm were misappropriate by the present applicant and 4 others, even false vouchers were obtained from a firm. He submitted a false report thereby facilitating the other accused to receive the loan. Loan in charge released loan without verifying the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. The amount was withdrawn by a co-accused Dhiresh Kumar Chakraborty. Another co-accused Aparesh Das Purkayastha issued false certificate in the name of company. All the accused entered into a conspiracy to make loss to public exchequer of Rs. 57,04,700.
The High court of Meghalaya held that the appeal has no merit. However, considering the age of the accused and also their behavior during pendency of the trial the term sentence of two years was reduced to one year./ILNS/DS/KR/SNG