1984 (12) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to withhold or impound the passport.
2. Validity of the order directing the return of the passport.
3. Apprehensions regarding the accused fleeing the country.
4. Legal provisions under the Indian Passports Act, 1967.
5. Arguments regarding the necessity of the accused to travel to Singapore.
6. Security and surety offered by the accused.
7. Expeditious disposal of the trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Withhold or Impound the Passport:
The primary issue is whether the Court has the jurisdiction to seize, withhold, or impound the passport of a person, be it an Indian or a foreigner. The respondent's counsel argued that under Section 10(3) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967, only the passport authority has the power to impound or revoke a passport, and no Court has such power. However, the judgment clarified that while the Act enumerates the grounds on which the passport authority can impound an Indian passport, it does not deal with passports issued by foreign governments. The Court held that there is no provision in the Passports Act or any other law prohibiting a Court from withholding or impounding a passport of a person accused of a grave offense when there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused may flee the country. This power is part of the inherent powers of the Court, necessary for the proper discharge of duties imposed upon them by law.

2. Validity of the Order Directing the Return of the Passport:
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had directed the return of the respondent's passport on sympathetic grounds, considering the death of the respondent's father and the need to console his mother. However, the judgment emphasized that sympathetic considerations cannot outweigh the interests of the administration of justice. The paramount consideration is securing the presence of the accused to face the trial, and when there is a reasonable apprehension of the accused fleeing, the Court must deny the facility to leave the country by withholding the passport.

3. Apprehensions Regarding the Accused Fleeing the Country:
The department argued that the respondent, being a foreigner involved in an offense of smuggling goods worth about Rs. 9 lakhs, might leave the country if allowed to do so, thereby defeating the ends of justice. The judgment acknowledged that the apprehension of the department was not far-fetched given the magnitude of the offense. The Court found considerable force in the department's contention and concluded that the interests of justice necessitated the withholding of the respondent's passport.

4. Legal Provisions Under the Indian Passports Act, 1967:
The judgment referred to the Indian Passports Act, 1967, specifically Section 10(3), which enumerates the grounds on which the passport authority can impound or revoke a passport. The Court noted that the Act does not cover passports issued by foreign governments and does not prohibit Courts from exercising their inherent powers to withhold or impound a passport in cases where the accused is likely to flee the country.

5. Arguments Regarding the Necessity of the Accused to Travel to Singapore:
The respondent argued that he needed to travel to Singapore to renew his passport, which was expiring in January 1985, to avoid losing his citizenship and becoming stateless. The judgment found this argument to be unsound and untenable, noting that the laws of Singapore allow for the renewal of passports through the country's diplomatic mission abroad. The respondent could apply to the High Commission for Singapore in New Delhi for the renewal of his passport.

6. Security and Surety Offered by the Accused:
The respondent had deposited a cash security and offered sureties to ensure his return to face trial. However, the judgment dismissed this offer, stating that relying on sureties in the case of a foreigner would be futile as they would be as helpless as the Court in securing the return of the accused. The forfeiture of the security amount would not substitute for the enforcement of the penal law.

7. Expeditious Disposal of the Trial:
The judgment directed the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to give priority to the case and dispose of it expeditiously, ideally within four weeks, considering the urgency and seriousness of the matter.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing the return of the passport to the respondent was set aside. The judgment underscored the Court's inherent powers to withhold or impound the passport of an accused, especially a foreigner, to ensure the administration of justice. Leave was granted for the respondent to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, recognizing the substantial question of law involved regarding the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to withhold or impound the passport of a foreigner accused of a grave offense.

← Previous Next →