AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking a direction that the 1st respondent give a "No Objection Certificate" to enable the 2nd respondent (Regional Passport Officer) to issue a passport. The petitioner is facing criminal trial in S.C. No. 209/2016 before the Mahila Sessions Court, Chennai, for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. The petitioner was selected to participate in Deep Dive courses on Health System Reform in Washington, U.S.A., scheduled between 06.11.2019 and 15.11.2019, and produced a selection order dated 04.10.2019. The petitioner's trial was posted for 26.11.2019. The petitioner had earlier filed an application before the concerned Criminal Court seeking a direction for issuance of a NOC from the Inspector of Police, K2-Aynavaram Police Station, which was returned.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner, who is facing criminal trial, can be permitted to leave the country and be issued a passport/NOC to attend an overseas course.
  2. Whether this Court can invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the Regional Passport Officer to treat the petitioner's passport application as a special case and issue a passport despite the ongoing criminal proceedings and the procedural requirement under the Gazette notification (GSR.570(E) of 1993).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner produced a selection order (dated 04.10.2019) for participation in specified courses in the U.S.A. between 06.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and sought urgent permission to travel.
  • The petitioner had applied to the Criminal Court for a direction to obtain a NOC from the Inspector of Police, but that application was returned; the petitioner contended there was insufficient time to follow the procedural route again before departure.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the procedure for permitting persons facing criminal trial to leave India is governed by Gazette notification GSR.570(E) of 1993 (25.08.1993), which requires an order from the court in which the person is facing trial; if such an order is obtained, the respondents may then scrutinise the passport application.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court heard counsel for the petitioner and respondents. It noted: (i) the petitioner is facing trial in S.C. No. 209/2016 for offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC; (ii) the petitioner produced a selection order for time-bound courses in the U.S.A.; (iii) the Gazette notification GSR.570(E) of 1993 prescribes that a person facing trial may be permitted to leave the country only upon obtaining an order from the court in which the trial is pending; and (iv) the petitioner's application to the Criminal Court seeking a direction for a NOC had been returned and there was insufficient time (four days, including the intervening weekend) to re-approach that court.

Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to avoid undue prejudice arising from the urgency. The Court exercised its discretion to grant liberty to the petitioner to apply to the Regional Passport Officer and directed the RPO to treat the matter as a special case and endeavour to issue the passport promptly, while preserving the RPO's ability to insist on compliance with all statutory requirements under the Passport Act. The Court imposed conditions: the petitioner must give an undertaking to return to India on or before 25.11.2019 and furnish details of place of stay in the U.S.A.; the RPO was also permitted to issue a passport for a temporary period. The Court limited the order to the peculiar facts of the case and expressly stated it should not be quoted in other situations.

Holding and Implications

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, with the Regional Passport Officer directed to treat the petitioner's passport application as a special case and endeavour to issue the passport promptly (preferably within two days of the application).

Implications for the parties: the petitioner may obtain a passport if he files the application immediately, complies with Passport Act requirements, provides an undertaking to return by at least 25.11.2019, and furnishes travel/stay details; the Regional Passport Officer retains discretion to verify compliance and may issue a temporary passport. The Court specified that this order is confined to the facts of this case and does not serve as a precedent to be cited in other matters.

    Dr. Mariano Anto Bruno v. State Rep. By, Inspector Of Police And Another

    Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to direct the 1 respondent to give “No Objection Certificate” to enable 2 respondent to grant passport to the petitioner and pass orders.

    The Order of the Court was delivered by

    M.S. Ramesh, J.:— Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2.

    2. The petitioner is facing Criminal trial in S.C. No. 209/2016 before the Hon'ble Mahila Sessions Court, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 306 & 498 A of I.P.C. Incidentally, the petitioner claims to have been selected for participating in Deep dive courses on Health System Reform in Washington (U.S.A) between 06.11.2019 to 15.11.2019. The selection order dated 04.10.2019 issued by the Tamil Nadu Health System Reform Program has been produced before this Court which evidences the petitioner's participation for the course of quality of care to be conducted between 07.11.2019 to 09.11.2019 and the Data Science and Technology innovation for improved Human capital conducted between 11.11.2019 to 15.11.2019.

    3. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 respondent submitted that the procedure for permitting persons facing a criminal trial to depart from India is provided under Gazette notification in GSR.570(E) of 1993, dated 25.08.1993, which stipulates that such person who is facing the criminal trial can be permitted to leave the country by obtaining an order from the Court in which he is facing the Criminal trial. It is his submission if such an order is obtained, the respondents may scrutinise the petitioner's application for issuance of the passport.

    4. It is stated that the Criminal Case in S.C. No. 209/2016 is posted for trial on 26.11.2019 and the period for which the petitioner intends to travel is only between 06.11.2019 to 15.11.2019. Apparently the petitioner will be in a position to return back to India for the purpose of participating in Criminal proceedings.

    5. The petitioner claims that he has filed an application before the concerned Criminal Court seeking for a direction for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” from the Inspector of Police, K2-Aynavaram Police Station, Chennai, to enable the Regional Passport Officer to issue the passport, which application has been returned. Though, the prayer sought for in the application is made before the Criminal Court is not as per the guideline provided in the Gazette notification, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the concerned Criminal Court once again, since the petitioner intends to leave the Country within four days from today, which includes the intervening weekend. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the view that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be invoked and the Regional Passport Officer could be directed to issue the passport. It is made clear that this order is made only in the circumstances of this case and same shall not be quoted in any other situations.

    6. In the light of above observation, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an application forthwith seeking for issuance of Passport and on such application, the Regional Passport Officer is called upon to treat this as a special case and endeavour to issue the passport to the petitioner, preferably within two days, from the receipt of the application. It is open to the Regional Passport Officer to insist upon compliance of all the requirements specified under the Passport Act for the purpose of issuance of the Passport. The petitioner shall also give a letter of undertaking before the Regional Passport Officer to return back to the Country, atleast before 25.11.2019 and also furnish the details of his place of stay, during his visit at U.S.A. in the application to be filed along with his application. It is also open to the Regional Passport Office to issue a passport for a temporary period.

    7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Dr. Mariano Anto Bruno v. State Rep. By, Inspector Of Police And Another
    (Nov 1, 2019)