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 a direction permitting retention of the passport and its forwarding to the Regional Passport Officer amounted to unauthorised impounding, and whether the passport had to be released to the appellant.
Analysis: The governing law treated seizure and impounding as distinct concepts. A passport could be impounded only by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, and the retained document could not be kept in custody or forwarded in a manner that effectively achieved impounding without compliance with the statutory procedure. The power of the police or the Court under the general criminal procedure provisions could not override the special regime under the Passports Act. Since impounding has civil consequences, the statutory authority had to act in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing where required.
Conclusion: The direction to forward the passport to the Regional Passport Officer was set aside and the passport was ordered to be released forthwith to the appellant. It remained open to the Regional Passport Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 10(1) of the Passports Act, 1967 in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A passport cannot be impounded, or effectively retained as impounded, except by the passport authority in accordance with the special procedure under the Passports Act, 1967; powers under the general criminal procedure law cannot be used to achieve that result.