NRISINGHA MURARI CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated June 23, 1971, upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences under Ss. 420 and 420/120-B of the Penal Code but reducing their sentences. The charge related to cheating the passport issuing authority of the Hooghly district by dishonestly inducing him to issue passports on the basis of false representations. This Court has limited the special leave to the question whether the passports were "property" within the meaning of S. 420 of the Penal Code

(2.) Speaking broadly, the allegation against the appellants was that there was a conspiracy between them as a result of which 1480 applications were filed for the issue of passports from July, 1956 to April, 1957, by Muslims and Chinese nationals. These applications were alleged to have been made by suppressing the real facts about the nationality and addresses of the applicants, and by making false representations in several other respects. The prosecution alleged that hundreds of passports were thus issued and delivered to persons who were not entitled to them under the law. Some of the appellants were alleged to be directly concerned with those applications, and it was further alleged that the orders of the Passport Authority were obtained by dishonest inducement and false representation.

(3.) A passport is a document which, by its nature and purpose, is a political document for the benefit of its holder. It recognises him as a citizen of the country granting it and is in the nature of a request to the other country for his free passage there. Its importance was examined by this Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, (1967) 3 SCR 525 with reference to the provisions of the Indian Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules made thereunder which were in force at the time when the offences were said to have been committed in this case. After referring to Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, and Rr. 4 and 5 of the Rules, this Court observed as follows:-