[2025:RJ-JP:21589] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1097/2025 Anil Kumar Garg S/o Gokul Prasad Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 60, Rajamal Ka Talab, Chandi Ki Taksal, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anzum Parveen, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 22/05/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. against the orders dated 31.01.2024, passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, who decline to specify the time period for renewal of the petitioner’s passport and the said order was affirmed by learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide order dated 09.09.2024. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 09.07.2020, the Revisional Court allowed the petitioner’s application and directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport. It is also contended that as per the notification dated 25.08.1993 passed under Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967, the Passport Authority in a pending criminal proceedings may renew the passport for period specified by the [2025:RJ-JP:21589] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1097/2025] court, if the concerned Court has specified a particular period, otherwise the period of renewal will only be for one year. It is further contended that the petitioner applied for renewal of passport for a period of 10 years but vide impugned order dated 31.01.2024 the trial Court and vide order dated 09.09.2024 the Revisional Court declined the petitioner’s prayer and did not consider the aforesaid notification, whereby, the Court have the discretion to direct the Passport Authority to specify the time period for renewal of the passport. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court may be quashed and they may be directed to hear the petitioner’s plea for specifying the period of renewal of his passport as per the notification dated 25.08.1993. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. The notification dated 25.08.1993 reads as under:- “It is submitted that the Ministry of External Affairs vide notification dated 25.08.1993 in exercise the power conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.G.S.R. 298(E) dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government decided that it is necessary in public interest to do so hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to DEPART FROM India from the operation of the provision of Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions namely:- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued :- (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or….” [2025:RJ-JP:21589] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1097/2025] 5. Thus, the above notification conferred the power to the concerned Court to specify the period for renewal of the passport subject to its discretion. The Court is not precluded to specify the period for renewal of the passport, as per the Clause-A(I) of the notification dated 25.08.1993. The Court below have not considered the said notification and dismissed the application of the petitioner without assigning any cogent reasons, therefore, in the light of the above notification, this Court deems it proper to direct the concerned trial Court to rehear the petitioner on the application for renewing the passport. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/Ashwani Kr Srivastava /13