Passport impounding must follow the special statute; criminal procedure powers cannot justify continued retention without lawful authority.

A special statute governing passports prevails over the general powers of criminal procedure: police may seize property, but neither police nor court can impound or continue to retain a passport under the Code of Criminal Procedure when the Passports Act, 1967 assigns that function to the passport authority. Continued retention after seizure is treated as impounding and, because it affects civil rights, it must be supported by action under Section 10(3) of the Act or temporary suspension under Section 10A, with procedural fairness and hearing by the competent authority. On that basis, the retention was unlawful and the passport was directed to be returned, subject to lawful action by passport authorities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the police or the court could retain or impound a passport under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the Passports Act, 1967 specifically governed impounding of passports. (ii) Whether the continued retention of the passport without action by the passport authority and without hearing was lawful.

Issue (i): Whether the police or the court could retain or impound a passport under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the Passports Act, 1967 specifically governed impounding of passports.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished seizure from impounding. The police could seize property under the criminal procedure law, but impounding of a passport was specifically dealt with by the Passports Act, 1967. The special enactment controlled the subject of passports, and the general power under the criminal procedure law could not be used to override that specific regime. The court's power to impound documents produced before it did not extend to a passport, because the Act assigned that function exclusively to the passport authority.

Conclusion: The police and the court had no authority to impound or retain the passport under the criminal procedure law.

Issue (ii): Whether the continued retention of the passport without action by the passport authority and without hearing was lawful.

Analysis: Retention of the passport after seizure amounted in substance to impounding it. Such impounding had civil consequences and therefore required action by the passport authority in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, or temporary suspension under Section 10A of that Act. Since no such lawful order had been passed and no opportunity of hearing had been given by the competent authority, the retention was illegal.

Conclusion: The continued retention of the passport was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the passport was directed to be returned, while leaving it open to the competent passport authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute specifically regulates impounding of passports, the general powers under criminal procedure cannot be used to impound or continue retention of a passport, and any such deprivation must be by the competent passport authority in accordance with law and after observance of procedural fairness.

---