2023 (9) TMI 1658 - HC - GST

Modification of condition imposed by the court regarding the surrender of the applicant s passport as a bail condition - power to impound a passport lies with the court or is restricted under the Passports Act 1967 - right to travel - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the applicant has complied with the conditions mentioned in the judgment dated 26.11.2021. The applicant has also cooperated with the proceedings initiated by the respondent. Condition (i) contained in Para-60 of judgment dated 26.11.2021 is modified to the extent that the passport of the applicant be released to him with the condition that in case he needs to travel abroad he shall do so after obtaining necessary permission from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House Courts Delhi. The present application is allowed and disposed of.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment revolves around the following core issues:

Whether the condition imposed by the court regarding the surrender of the applicant's passport as a bail condition can be modified.
Whether the power to impound a passport lies with the court or is restricted under the Passports Act, 1967.
Whether the applicant's right to travel, which is argued to be a fundamental right, can be restricted under the current legal circumstances.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Modification of Bail Condition

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The applicant's request to modify the bail condition is based on the argument that the passport can only be impounded under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967. The applicant cited precedents where courts have held that passports cannot be retained by the police or courts except under the Passports Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the applicant's compliance with the original bail conditions and noted the need for the applicant to travel for business purposes. The court considered precedents from other cases where similar relief was granted.
Key Evidence and Findings: The applicant had surrendered his passport as per the bail condition, and there was no evidence of non-cooperation with the proceedings. The status report from the respondent highlighted the pending adjudication and the risk of the applicant fleeing justice.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal principle that the power to impound a passport lies with the competent authority under the Passports Act, not the court. The applicant's fundamental right to travel was also considered.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the respondent's concern about the applicant fleeing with the applicant's right to travel and the legal framework regarding passport impoundment.
Conclusions: The court modified the bail condition to allow the applicant to retain his passport, subject to obtaining permission for international travel from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Issue 2: Power to Impound Passport

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, governs the impoundment of passports. The court referred to judgments emphasizing that only the competent authority under the Passports Act can impound a passport.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court agreed with the applicant's argument that the power to impound a passport is not within the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Key Evidence and Findings: The court relied on precedents that distinguish the special law governing passports from general procedural laws.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that the Passports Act, being a special law, prevails over the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. concerning document impoundment.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the respondent's concerns but emphasized the legal boundaries regarding passport impoundment.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the applicant is entitled to the release of his passport, as the court does not have the authority to impound it under the Cr.P.C.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The passport can only be impounded under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967. The police, court, or the department cannot impound the passport except for the proceedings under the Passports Act."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the impoundment of passports is governed exclusively by the Passports Act, and the right to travel is recognized as a fundamental right.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court modified the bail condition to allow the applicant to retain his passport, subject to obtaining necessary permissions for travel, thus balancing the applicant's rights with procedural safeguards.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to specific legal frameworks and the recognition of fundamental rights, such as the right to travel, within the context of legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →