Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the passport of the accused could be retained or impounded by the Customs authorities or by the Court pending criminal proceedings, and whether the order refusing return of the passport was sustainable.
Analysis: The governing framework distinguished between seizure and impounding. A passport may be seized in the course of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but impounding can be done only by the passport authority in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967. The Court treated the right to travel as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and noted that any impounding decision has civil consequences and must follow the statutory procedure. It further held that the special regime under the Passports Act prevails over the general provisions of criminal procedure, and that neither the Customs authorities nor the criminal court can assume the power to impound a passport. The retained passport could be preserved by keeping an attested copy for evidentiary purposes.
Conclusion: The order rejecting return of the passport was unsustainable, and the revision petition was allowed with a direction to return the passport subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A passport may be seized during investigation, but it can be impounded only by the competent passport authority under the Passports Act, 1967, not by the police, Customs authorities, or the criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.