Item No. 41 Ct 22 rup 01.05. 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRR 3910 of 2024 Dr. Pronab Dasgupta Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Ms. Srijeeta Gupta, Ms. Sonia Das. … for the Petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP. Mr. Arijit Ganguly. … for the State. 1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Milon Mukherjee appears on behalf of the petitioner as well as State is being represented by the learned counsel Mr. Arijit Ganguly. 2. This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in connection with S. T. No. 2(6) of 2016, wherein Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court-in-charge, Alipore refused to allow the prayer for renewal of the passport of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a visiting lecturer of an institute at Bangkok. For that reason, he has to visit frequently at Bangkok and for that reason it has become hardship for him to renew his passport every year. 4. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to an order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in connection with CRR 640 of 2024, where permission for renewal of passport was sought for and allowed for five years. 5. Per contra, Mr. Arijit Ganguly learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has countered the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Mukherjee by referring to the report submitted by OC SIT DD, that on the date of incident alleged in this case, petitioner flew out from the country and was only available for interrogation a couple of months later and that is the reason for standing in the way of permission for renewal of the passport. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that trial is going on. 6. I am sorry to subscribe to the view of Mr. Arijit Ganguly that the report submitted by OC CIT DD can be considered to reject the prayer for renewal of passport of the petitioner. 7. There is hardly any proximity between renewal of passport and commission of offence as alleged in this case against the petitioner. 8. Considering all facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the order for refusal of renewal of the passport for more than one year is not sustainable in law as there is a specific provision in Rule 12 of the passport Rule 1980 which runs as follows:- 2 “12. Duration of passport or travel documents (1) An ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age of 15 years containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years from the date of its issue…...” 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the prayer for renewal for five years stands allowed. 10. Petitioner is directed to file necessary application as per rules for renewal of the passport for five years only. 11. In this regard, I make it clear that at the time of leaving country petitioner has to seek permission from the Learned Trial Court. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. 14. All the parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official web site of this Court. (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) 3