Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Police have power to seize the passport but not to impound the same, it is for the Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be impounded MANU/SC/0799/2023 - (25 Jul 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Chennupati Kranthi Kumar Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The dispute involved in present appeals concerns the return of the passport of the Appellant. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied upon a decision of present Court in the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation by submitting that, there is no power vesting in the Police to impound a passport. He further submitted that, the power to impound passport vests only in the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967 ('the PP Act'). He submitted that, in fact, the Appellant's passport was never impounded and therefore, it must be returned to him unconditionally. 
A relevant decision of this Court on the issue involved is in the case of Suresh Nanda. In the said decision, it was held that the power under Section 104 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be invoked to impound a passport. The reason is that the provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of CrPC. Moreover, it was held that under Section 102 (1) of CrPC, the Police have the power to seize the passport but there is no power to impound the same. It was held that, even if the power of seizure of a passport is exercised under Section 102, the Police cannot withhold the said document and the same must be forwarded to the Passport Authority. It is, thereafter, for the Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be impounded. 
It is an accepted position that the Police took custody of the Appellant's passport in the exercise of powers under Section 91 of CrPC. and handed over the same to the 3rd Respondent. The direction to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the Appellant's passport was completely illegal. As regards the passport of the son, it is taken care of as the Appellant has followed the prescribed procedure in USA regarding lost passports. The condition of returning the passport of the 4th Respondent could not have been imposed at all as the act of the Passport Officer of retaining the Appellant's passport was completely illegal. 
The condition imposed on the Appellant by the impugned order of returning the passports of the 4th Respondent and of the son is set aside. It will be open for the 4th Respondent to apply to the concerned Regional Passport Office in prescribed format for the reissue of her passport or for grant of a fresh passport. Appeals are partly allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Passport, Impounding, Condition</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>