Though the police may have power to seize a passport, it can be done only if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., but it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act.
The Passports Act was enacted to regulate the free movement of citizens departing out of this country. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, though the right to free movement is a given fundamental right, but restricting it is considered a gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Passports Act was created to regulate this as a means of positive reinforcement by not letting those who may hamper the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
Case- Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v/s Ashok Ramchander Chugani &anr.
Case no.- Criminal Appeal NO(S). 1674/2015
Order by- Arun Mishra, J. and Indira Banerjee,J.
Brief facts
This case basically refers to the Impounding of passports which are provided for under Section 10 (3) of the Passports Act, 1967. In this case the respondent is a Dutch National with two cases of serious offences are pending against him and conditions may be imposed upon him that he may not leave the country till the conclusion of the cases. Referencing the question whether the passport be impounded by exercising power under section 102 read with section 165 and 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Nanda vs. CBI has answered this question in negative and observed that while the police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it does not have the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. It provides for impounding of a passport if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India. Thus, the Passport Authority has the power to impound the passport under the Passport Act. It was observed by SC –
“Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport.“
Key Features
Section 10(3) of Passport Act – The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document—
(a) If the passport authority is satisfied that the holder of the passport or travel document is in wrongful possession thereof.
(b) If the passport or travel document was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf: [Provided that if the holder of such passport obtains another passport, the passport authority shall also impound or cause to be impounded or revoke such other passport.].
Provided that if the holder of such passport obtains another passport, the passport authority shall also impound or cause to be impounded or revoke such other passport.
(c) If the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public;
(d) If the holder of the passport or travel document has, at any time after the issue of the passport or travel document, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
(e) If proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India;
(f)If any of the conditions of the passport or travel document has been contravened;
(g) If the holder of the passport or travel document has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the same;
(h) If it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document, has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued, or an order has been so made.
Judgment
- SC is of the view that conditions are required to be imposed by the Trial Court and hence is to be left upon the Trial Court to consider imposition of conditions, if any.
- Further the Court directed that respondent shall not be permitted to travel abroad. In the meantime, it is open to the appellant to move the Trial Court for imposition of appropriate conditions that Trial Court shall decide unfettered by observations made by this Court in this order.
Edited by Pragash Boopal
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
