HINA CHANDRAKANT KAKKAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 01.09.2006 passed by the Joint Secretary (CPV) and CPO, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner's application for restoration of her passport was rejected on the ground that there are still pending criminal cases against the petitioner and the restoration of her passport at this juncture may affect the ongoing proceedings before the court. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner (Ms Hina Chandrakant Kakkad) tried to travel to London on 08.07.2004 on Passport No.E4175544 issued on 25.02.2003 to one Ms. Geetaben Dhirubhai Patel. It was revealed that the photograph of the petitioner was replaced on the passport issued to Ms Patel and thus a forgery was committed. The petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2004 and remanded to police custody. Later on, she was released on bail. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.R831435 on 09.06.1994. On this passport she had travelled to London. In 1998, she got married in London. In 2004, while she was in India, this passport (R831435) was reportedly lost. She applied for a fresh passport and was issued a new Passport E8469206 on 08.04.2004 which is valid till 07.04.2014. When she applied for this new passport which was issued to her on 08.04.2004, the petitioner disclosed herself as single, though she was already married.

(2.) However, the petitioner did not travel on this passport and was apprehended on 08.07.2004 attempting to travel on the forged Passport No.E4175544 which was issued to Ms. Patel. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the reason why she was travelling on this forged passport was that she had applied for a U.K. visa and had been given the same in respect of her Passport E8469206. The learned counsel for the respondents further points out that on 08.07.2004 when she was attempting to go out of India, she was travelling with the husband of Ms. Patel portraying and posing herself as the wife of Mr Patel.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner insisted that the present case was covered by various decisions of the Supreme Court and those of the High Courts. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh: AIR 1992 SC 2100. He also referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Aklesh Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others: 1988 CRL. L. J. 1227. The decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hajra Iqbal Memon v. Union of India: 1997 (41) DRJ 108 as well as the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Sri-la-Sri Arunagirinathar v. State: AIR 1989 MADRAS 3 were also referred to.