IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1746 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
The Regional Passport Office 80 Feet Road, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095 Rep by Officer in Charge (By Sri. C.Shashikantha, Assistant Solicitor General of India) AND:
Mr. Jarisa Savur, S/o. Savur D’souza, Aged about 53 years, R/a No.56, V.Nagenhalli Church, Behind Vishwanath Nagenahalli, Bengaluru-560032.
…Appellant ... Respondent (By Sri. Jarish Savur, Party-in-person)(Absent) This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.25510/2015 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for declaration.
This RFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission.
2. I have heard the appellant’s counsel.
Respondent has been served with notice of this appeal, he is absent. Actually on 07.02.2019, the case was adjourned to see that the respondent would appear and argue his case.
3. The appellant is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.25510/2015 on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. The suit was filed by the respondent seeking declaration that his correct date of birth is 01.06.1963 and for a direction to the appellant/defendant to carryout necessary corrections in his passport bearing No.L9888615. The respondent in his plaint pleaded that his correct date of birth is 01.06.1963. On 12.03.1990, he was issued with a passport bearing No.H109005. In the said passport his date of birth is shown as 01.06.1963. Since he did not get it renewed well within time, it expired and subsequently he obtained another passport bearing No.B1912811 on 05.07.2000. In the said passport also his date of birth is shown as 01.06.1963. He could not get it renewed and therefore it also lapsed. Thereafter the respondent applied for another passport through an agent giving his date of birth as 25.05.1973 and he made an affidavit stating that his date of birth is 25.05.1973. He was issued with a passport bearing No.L9888615 dated 02.07.2014. On 07.04.2015 the respondent made a representation to the appellant to carryout necessary corrections in his passport with regard to date of birth. It is stated that the appellant issued a letter to him on 30.04.2015 directing him to get an order from the Court and hence he filed the suit.
4. The appellant contended in his written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable; that the respondent has filed a false suit; that he intentionally gave false information with regard to date of birth and educational qualification at the time of obtaining third passport and therefore the relief claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted.
5. The trial Court raised four issues. The plaintiff/respondent adduced evidence as PW-1 and produced six documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6. An Officer of the passport office adduced evidence as DW-1 and she produced one document as per Ex.D.1.
6. On appraisal of the evidence, especially placing reliance on Ex.P.1, SSLC Marks card, the trial Court come to conclusion that the correct date of birth of respondent/plaintiff is 01.06.1963. Exs.P.2 and P.3 are the passports issued to PW1 on earlier occasions. P5 is the letter given by the respondent seeking rectification of his date of birth in the third passport and P6 is the letter dated 30.04.2015 issued by the appellant requiring the appellant to obtain Court order. The trial Court on being satisfied with the date of birth of the respondent as 01.06.1963 decreed the suit.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the respondent gave false information with regard to his educational qualification and date of birth at the time of applying for passport for third time. He swore to an affidavit stating that his date of birth is 25.05.1973 and that he has studied upto third standard. This affidavit is false. In the first two passports, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.06.1963. Therefore whatever the information that the respondent furnished at the time of obtaining third passport being false, the appellant is entitled to take criminal action against respondent according to Section 12 of the Passports Act. His specific argument is that the finding of the trial Court on Issue No.3 comes in the way of initiating criminal action against the respondent and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed.
8. After hearing the appellant’s counsel, it has to be stated that if according to the respondent his date of birth is 01.06.1963 as evidenced by Ex.P.1, the SSLC Marks Card which is considered as proof for date of birth also, I do not think that trial Court has committed any error in declaring the date of birth of the respondent as 01.06.1963. It is very important to mention here that when the respondent noticed his date of birth being wrongly entered in the passport, he made a letter to the appellant as per Ex.P.5. To this letter, the appellant issued a reply as per Ex.P.6 to approach the Court. Therefore it is to be stated that the respondent would not have filed a suit if he had not been asked by the appellant by issuing a letter as per Ex.P.6. In his first two passports, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.06.1963 only. In these circumstances if the trial Court comes to conclusion to grant declaration that the date of birth of the respondent as 01.06.1963, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any error.
9. The appellant is very much aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court on issue No.3, which is as follows:
3. Whether the defendant proves that, the plaintiff has obtained passport bearing No.L9888615 by furnishing false/fake particulars by stating his DOB as 25.05.1973?
10. Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act empowers the passport authority to impound or cause to be impounded or revoke the passport or travel document for several reasons. Clause (b) empowers the passport authority to exercise powers if passport or travel document was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of the wrong information provided by the holder of the passport of travel document or any other person on his behalf. It is argued therefore by the appellant’s counsel that even though the respondent obtained third passport through an agent, he can still be prosecuted. Finding on issue No.3 is coming in the way of taking action. The trial court has held this issue No.3 in Negative.
I do not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the trial court while answering issue No.3 in negative. Yet, if the appellant is of the opinion that the respondent can still be prosecuted according to Section 12 of the Act, nothing comes in the way of the appellant taking action against respondent. It is for the appellant to prove that the respondent obtained third passport by giving false information intentionally or knowingly. With this discussion appeal does not deserve to be allowed and hence it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KMV/-
Ct-bl