TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Rules Against Passport Impoundment in Criminal Case</h1> <h3>M RAMCHANDAR SINGH Versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI</h3> The High Court allowed the criminal revision case challenging the impounding of passports by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases. The Court held ... Criminal revision - The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases fairly concedes that the passports were seized not because of any offence that was committed in respect of the passports, but in order to see that they do not leave the boundaries of the country without the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would say that the respondent will be satisfied, if the return of passport is conditioned by an undertaking that the petitioners, whenever intend to leave the country, should give information to the Investigating Officer regarding the date of their departure, place of destination and the expected date of return - This criminal revision case is allowed and the Court below is directed to return the passports of the petitioners on the condition that petitioners 1 to 5 giving an undertaking to furnish advance information to the investigating Officer regarding date of their departure, place of destination and the expected date of return. Issues:Challenge to order of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases regarding impounding of passports pending investigation or trial.Analysis:The petitioners, including minors, challenged an order of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases regarding the impounding of their passports in a case involving alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Central Excise Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act. The Investigating Officer had seized the passports, leading to the petitioners filing a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C for the return of the passports. The Court below had dismissed the petition, prompting the petitioners to question the legality of the order in the present criminal revision case before the High Court.Technical Error:Although only petitioners 1 to 5 were accused in the case, petitioners 6 and 7 were also described as accused persons due to a technical mistake. The Court noted that such a technical error should not prevent the grant of necessary relief in the interest of justice.Power to Impound Passports:The learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that neither the Investigating Officer nor the Special Judge had the authority to impound passports during investigation or trial. He cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in support of this argument. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases acknowledged that the passports were seized to prevent the petitioners from leaving the country without informing the Investigating Officer. The Prosecutor agreed that the passports could be returned with the condition that the petitioners provide information about their travel plans to the Investigating Officer.Court's Decision:The High Court found the submissions of the senior counsel for the petitioners regarding the impounding of passports to be valid. Citing the Supreme Court judgment, the Court held that the lower court's order was incorrect and directed the return of the passports to the petitioners. However, to ensure that the investigation was not hindered, the Court imposed a condition that petitioners 1 to 5, the accused individuals, must inform the Investigating Officer in advance about their travel plans. Consequently, the criminal revision case was allowed, and the Court below was instructed to return the passports of the petitioners under the specified condition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
