Whether court or police has power to impound passport?

In our opinion, while the police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C., 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.

15. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word "impound" has been defined to mean

"to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law".

Thus, the word "impounding" really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized.

16. 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. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [MANU/SC/0332/1967 : Air 1967 SC 1269].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

W.P.(MD) No. 24591 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 22299 of 2018

Decided On: 11.02.2020

 Gideon Jacob Vs. The Foreigners's Regional Registration Officer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Sundar, J.

Print Page

Whether passport can be returned to accused if police has illegally seized passport?

Considering the observations of the Courts in the aforesaid
decision, it is clear that the power of impounding are vested with
the Passport Authority. In the circumstances, the passport was

seized by the respondents on 13th March, 2014. Retention of
passport for such a long period amounting to impounding, which
is not permissible in law. The illegality cannot continue in
perpetuity. It is within the domain of the Passport Authority to
initiate action under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act. In the
light of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of
Suresh Nanda (Supra), the decision can be taken by such
Authority after hearing the passport holder. The illegal
impounding therefore cannot be continued by handing over the
passport by the respondents to the Passport Authority after a
lapse of more than three years. However, it would be open to the
Passport Authority to initiate any action under Section 10(3)(e) of
the Passport Act. The passport, however, is required to be
returned to the applicant. This order is without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the respondents any other Competent
Authority, Passport Authority to initiate action and of impounding
under the provisions of the Passport Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2018

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DELIVERED ON : JUNE 04, 2018.

Print Page