New Delhi, Aug 28 A Delhi court has ordered framing of charges against a former assistant commissioner of police (ACP) for allegedly suppressing material information about a pending criminal case while applying for a fresh passport in 2013.
Judicial Magistrate Preeti was hearing a case against Vinod Kumar Pandey, who had not disclosed information regarding a criminal case against him while applying for a fresh passport.
The magistrate rejected the accused's objections to the prosecution's version of the events and held that a prima-facie case under section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, was made out against him.
In an order dated August 25, the court said, "Suppressing information with respect to the pendency of any criminal trial is a material information. The record reflects that on the date of filling the application, a criminal trial was pending against the accused and therefore, a prima-facie case for the offence punishable under section 12 of the Passport Act is made out against the accused for suppressing the material information."
Pandey had argued that the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction as his passport was issued by the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in Ghaziabad.
The court rejected the contention, noting that the affidavit supporting his passport application was executed and notarised in New Delhi. It held that part of the alleged offence was committed within Delhi's jurisdiction and relied on section 179 (offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the prosecution, Pandey had applied for a fresh Tatkal passport on October 29, 2013, and affirmed that he was not facing criminal proceedings and that no arrest warrant or summons was pending against him.
The court noted that a criminal trial was pending against him at the time of applying for the passport. The record showed that he was summoned by a court in 2005 in connection with offences under Indian Penal Code sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 427 (mischief causing damage) and 448 (punishment for house-trespass), and granted bail in 2010.
The accused had also contended that a high court stay on the summoning order meant that there were no operative criminal proceedings requiring disclosure. The court rejected the argument, observing that a stay was an interim measure and did not extinguish the proceedings.
The court also rejected the argument that a private complaint could not be filed for an offence under the Passport Act, observing that there was no statutory bar against such a complaint.
It further held that the prosecution was not barred by any limitation at this stage and noted that cognisance was taken after sanction under section 15 of the Passport Act.
The court has fixed October 24 for framing of charges.
