Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 120-B, 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 7A, 8, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Judgement by: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 

Judge/Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar

Facts

The petitioner, facing trial under corruption and forgery charges, had previously obtained a one-year NOC for Hajj Pilgrimage. Upon seeking a five-year passport renewal, the trial court dismissed his application as premature and for lack of documentary proof of foreign travel necessity

Key Legal Provisions

Sections 120-B, 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 7A, 8, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Issues raised

Whether an accused be denied NOC for a passport without valid legal grounds?

Arguments of the case

The Appellant argued that the Appellant has a constitutional right to hold a passport and the trial court’s rejection on grounds of prematurity and lack of travel necessity was legally untenable while the Counsel for the Respondent accepted notice on behalf of the respondent without recorded substantive arguments.

Judgement

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court’s order. It was held that every citizen has a constitutional right to hold a passport, and criminal courts must only consider whether the accused would remain available for trial and not the necessity of foreign travel.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.