2011 (9) TMI 727 - HC - Customs

Writ - petitioner arrived on 15.09.2009 to Bajpe International Airport - 9 Kg Saffron were seized - redemption fine was paid however passport of the petitioner was not returned - Held That - Apex court in Suresh Nand held that no power vested in any other officer or Court except the Passport officer to retain passport. In the given case direction cannot be granted as it is in the custody of the Special Judge. Writ dismissed. The only course open for the petitioner is to apply before the learned Special Judge, Mangalore for release of the passport.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking return of seized passport, authority to withhold passport, justification for retention of passport, power to impound passport under Passport Act, personal liberty and right to travel abroad, reliance on judgments for return of passport, custody of passport with the Court, availability of legal recourse for passport release.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the return of his passport seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence during an inquiry. The petitioner claimed to have paid sums for redemption of seized goods and filed an application to close the prosecution and return his passport. The Chief Judicial Magistrate closed the proceedings but did not return the passport, leading to the writ petition. The petitioner argued that the respondents had no legal authority to withhold the passport after penalty payment and release of seized goods.

The petitioner's counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in SURESH NANDA vs C.B.I, emphasizing that only the Passport officer under the Passports Act had the power to impound a passport. The counsel contended that personal liberty included the right to travel abroad, and no one could be deprived of this right without due process of law. The respondents argued that the passport was crucial evidence in a criminal case against the petitioner, and its retention was necessary for the prosecution's case.

After considering the arguments and relevant judgments, the Court held that the power to impound a passport rested with the competent officer under the Passport Act. As the passport was in the custody of the Special Judge for the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus for its return. The Court directed the petitioner to apply before the Special Judge for the passport's release, allowing him to raise the same grounds and rely on relevant judgments for consideration.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner could seek the passport's release from the Special Judge by presenting his arguments and relying on legal precedents. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious consideration by the lower court, preserving the petitioner's right to pursue legal recourse for the passport's return.