The Calcutta High Court clarified that, under the 1993 Ministry of External Affairs Notification pursuant to Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, only the Trial Court—the court where the criminal case is pending—has jurisdiction to grant permission or ‘No Objection’ for issuance or renewal of a passport for accused persons. This judgment reaffirms the interpretation of “Criminal Court” and is binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/3058/2025 of MANAS KUMAR DATTA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCA0321382025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure, Passport Law |
| Questions of Law | Which criminal court is competent to grant ‘No Objection’ to accused persons for issuance/renewal of passport under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 and related Notification? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Notification dated 25.08.1993 under Section 22 of the Passports Act permits an accused to obtain or renew a passport if the ‘Criminal Court’ gives no objection to travel. The ‘Criminal Court’ refers to the court in which the main criminal trial is pending, not a revisional court. Applications for such permissions must be filed before the Trial Court. If a revision is pending, the revisional court is to return the case records, enabling the Trial Court to decide the application appropriately and expeditiously, considering the Notification. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specified |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Notification dated 25.08.1993 of Ministry of External Affairs vide G.S.R. 570 (E), Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, an accused, sought a ‘No Objection’ order from a revisional court for passport issuance while a revision was pending. The revisional court rejected the application. The High Court set aside this order, holding that the application must be made to the Trial Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and relevant authorities interpreting the Passports Act bodies |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that only the Trial Court where the main criminal proceedings are pending can grant ‘No Objection’ for passport issuance or renewal for accused persons under the relevant Notification of the Passports Act.
- Revisional Courts are not the appropriate fora for such applications, even if a revision is pending before them.
- The judgment reinforces the procedural step: if a revision is pending, the records must be remitted back to the Trial Court to adjudicate the application.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the Notification dated 25.08.1993, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows the granting of a passport to an accused facing criminal proceedings if an order is produced from the criminal court permitting departure from India.
- “Criminal Court” for the purposes of such permission is interpreted to mean the court where the substantive criminal trial is pending, i.e., the Trial Court.
- The pendency of a revision does not displace the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to consider ‘No Objection’ applications under the Notification.
- The revisional court is to remit records to the Trial Court where appropriate, and the Trial Court is directed to expeditiously and lawfully decide applications seeking permission for passport issuance/renewal, specifically considering the Notification.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought ‘No Objection’ from the court for passport issuance/renewal, referencing the 1993 Notification under Section 22 of the Passports Act.
- Argued entitlement to approach the criminal court for such permission while being an accused.
Union of India
- Submitted that any application for ‘No Objection’ must be made before the Trial Court, not the revisional court.
- Noted that the relevant legal provisions may not have been placed before the revisional court.
State
- Opposed the prayer.
- Argued that the revisional application is not maintainable for this relief.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an accused in a pending criminal trial, required a ‘No Objection’ certificate from the court for issue/renewal of his passport. While a criminal revision was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge against an order recording plea by the trial court, the petitioner filed an application before the revisional court seeking such ‘No Objection’. The revisional court dismissed the application. The Calcutta High Court was approached for relief under criminal revisional jurisdiction.
Statutory Analysis
- The Notification dated 25.08.1993 under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, was discussed in detail.
- The Notification allows granting of a passport to an accused person if the criminal court permits departure from the country by order.
- The judgment interprets “Criminal Court” under the Notification to mean the Trial Court where the main proceedings are pending, not an appellate or revisional court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment directs that, where an application for a ‘No Objection’ order is moved while case records are before a revisional court, the revisional court must promptly return records to the Trial Court for adjudication of such applications.
- Establishes that revisional courts are not to rule on ‘No Objection’ for passport permission and must facilitate the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment clarifies and affirms existing procedural law and notification interpretation without overruling prior precedent.