RANJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply on behalf of respondent No.3 is filed in Court. The same is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a passport. The State report to the passport officer is that there are two criminal cases registered against him but in the case registered in FIR No.27 dated 18.3.1993, the petitioner had been acquitted. As regards yet another case in FIR No.99 dated 21.4.2002, challan was presented on 1.5.2004 and the case is still pending. The report also says that he used to give shelter to the terrorists and as per the Police Station record, "he is high doubts" (sic). The petitioner states that he has not been involved in any case for all these years. In terms of Section 6 of the Passport Act, the clauses that could be relevant would be (2) (c)clause (e) (f) and g) they are reproduced as under:-

(3.) As far as clause (c) is concerned the departure from India should be detrimental to the security of India. In the context in which the said recommendation is against the petitioner, it is expected that there is a basis for a statement that he harbors terrorists. If there is any such apprehension or if he is shown to have been involved in a criminal case, then it should be a matter of record and not merely an expression of a wild statement that he is involved in terrorist activities. The said report itself refers to only pendency of two cases and is not seen on what basis the imputation is made that he is involved with terrorists. Sub clause (e) refers to a conviction of a person by a Court of India. Admittedly the petitioner has not been convicted and therefore it does not apply. Clause (f) refers to proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed and where a case is pending. Clause (g) applies in cases where a warrant or summon for appearance has been issued by a Court and the order prohibiting the departure from India had been made by any such Court.