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 an application seeking interim custody of a passport under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after filing of charge sheet, and whether the returned application required interference.
Analysis: The petitioner was facing prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The passport had already been surrendered as a bail condition. An earlier request for interim custody had been rejected and attained finality. After filing of charge sheet and taking of cognizance, the Court held that the proper course for seeking custody of the passport was an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the trial Court. The returned application under Section 439(1)(b) was therefore treated as not maintainable in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The challenge to the returned application failed. The Court held that the petitioner must pursue relief, if any, under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: After filing of charge sheet and taking of cognizance, interim custody of seized property or documents such as a passport must ordinarily be sought under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not by invoking Section 439(1)(b) to modify bail conditions.