2008 (1) TMI 876 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing? Whether the respondent directed to hand over the passport to the appellant within a week from today?

Summary

Issues:
1. Impoundment of passport under Passports Act, 1967 vs. Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
2. Power of police to seize and impound passport
3. Distinction between seizing and impounding of a document
4. Special Act vs. General Act in impounding passports

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a non-resident Indian settled in the UK, had his passport seized during a search in India. The impoundment of the passport was contested, with the appellant citing the Passports Act, 1967, specifically Section 10(3)(e), which allows impoundment if criminal proceedings are pending. The High Court reversed the release order, leading to the appeal.

2. The respondent argued that the passport was impounded under Cr.P.C. Sections 102, 165, and 104. However, the appellant contended that only the Passport Authority can impound a passport under the Passports Act, not the police. The Court emphasized the distinction between seizing and impounding, stating that impounding can only be done by the passport authority.

3. The Court clarified that while the police can seize a passport under Cr.P.C., the power to impound lies with the passport authority. Impounding involves retaining possession of a seized document for a period, which requires specific authorization. The police must refer seized passports to the passport authority for proper impoundment procedures.

4. The judgment highlighted the supremacy of the Passports Act over Cr.P.C. in matters of passport impoundment. Special Acts like the Passports Act take precedence over general laws like Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that impounding a passport falls under the Passports Act's purview, not Cr.P.C., and directed the respondent to return the passport while allowing them to follow legal procedures for impoundment if necessary. The Court refrained from opining on using passport impoundment as a bail condition.