MOHAMMED RAFSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges Ext.P10 order of the third respondent and Ext.P15 order of the second respondent in an appeal filed against the Ext.P10 order.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.688/2020 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy arising from Crime No.502 of 2018 of Mala Police Station as also in C.C. No.246/2022 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur arising from Crime No.736/2019 of Varappuzha Police Station. Crime No.502 of 2018 has been registered alleging commission of the offence under Sec. 420 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC while Crime No.736 of 2019 has been registered under Ss. 406 and 420 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner applied for the re-issue of his passport relying on the permissions granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur, permitting the issue of a passport to the petitioner. While the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy permitted the renewal/re-issue of the passport for a period of three years, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, North Paravur permitted the renewal/reissue of the passport for a period of five years. It appears that there is a red corner notice issued by Interpol on account of certain proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the Law Enforcement agencies in Qatar. The Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority found that since the petitioner had not produced any permission to travel abroad from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur and on account of the red corner notice issued against the petitioner, he is not entitled to a re-issue of the passport.

(3.) Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the instructions of Adv. Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar submits that the permissions granted to the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur clearly indicate that the petitioner is entitled to the re-issue of his passport. It is submitted that those orders only require that before travelling abroad, the petitioner is to obtain further permission from those Courts. It is submitted that the petitioner will travel abroad only after obtaining permission from those Courts and therefore, the finding that the orders permitting the re-issue of passport are not sufficient for considering the application for such re-issue may not be sustainable.