TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was charged for carrying dutiable goods on which duty was not paid as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner was arrested by respondent No.1 - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Petitioner approached the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay and applied for bail. The Petitioner was released on bail by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day. The Respondent no.1 moved the Magistrate on 28^th May, 2007 seeking judicial custody of the Petitioner and also prayed for grant of permission by the Court to retain the passport of the Petitioner with a view to facilitate further investigation. The Respondent no.1 had also challenged the order granting bail to the Petitioner by filing a Criminal Application in the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 7^th August, 2007 allowed the said application and cancelled the bail granted to the Petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner moved the Apex Court by filing Criminal Appeal bearing No.1138/07. Apex Court by an order dated 27^th August, 2007 set aside the order passed by the High Court by observing that the offence concerned was bailable. 3. During the course of inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act merely confers investing power by making reference to Section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act. Power to search and seize "documents" which is available to the authority under section 131(3) does not extend to seizure of passport. The term "documents" cannot be construed to mean and include a passport, for dealing with which a separate enactment exists viz. Passports Act. Passports Act being a special statute it shall exclude the applicability of a general provision to be found in other enactments dealing with seizure of documents. (c) Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1967 S.C. 1836, and Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, it is contended that personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit a right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of his right, except according to the procedure prescribed by law. Article 21 safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law. Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the passport. 10. Thus the Act is a special Act relating to a matter of passport, whereas section 104 CrPC., authorises the court to impound document or thing produced before it. Where there is a special Act dealing with specific subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the Specific Act. As the Passports Act is a special Act, the rule that "general provision should yield to the specific provision" is to be applied. See Damji Valji Shah v. LIC of India, Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State of Bihar and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. V. State of Bihar. 11. The Act being a specific Act whereas Section 104 CrPC. is a general provision for impounding any document or thing, it shall prevail over that section in CrPC as regards the passport. Thus, by necessary implication, the power of Court to impound any document or thing produced before it would exclude passport. 18. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 CrPC states that the court may, if it things fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) S. Mohanraj v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 251(MAD.) = 1995 Cri.L.J. 3018. (iii) Abdul Kader Mohamed Jhaveri v. Union of India and ors. AIR 1987 Gujarat 176; and (iv) Mrs. Hamida Habib Jeelani @ Hamida Begum v. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of A.P. & anr., 1996 Cri. L.J. 1086. 10. For proper appreciation of the submissions, we reproduce Section 104 of Cr.P.C. which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, so also Section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act, on which reliance is placed by the learned Solicitor General to support the action of impounding the passport. Section 104 of Cr.P.C. reads thus : "104. Power to impound document, etc., produced. - Any Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it under this Code." Section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act, reads thus : "131. (3) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, any authority referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] may impound and retain in its custody for such period as it thinks fit any books of account or other documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act : Provided that an Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be made by having recourse to general provision under the Income Tax Act, regulating the seizure of documents. The writ petition, therefore, must succeed. In view of the clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court in case of Suresh Nanda, we do not propose to deal with the High Court judgments, relied upon by the learned Solicitor General. 13. Certainly the law is tilted in favour of the Petitioner but the Court cannot overlook that the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an equitable jurisdiction. During the course of arguments, it was argued with some emphasis that there are number of accounts and some of them contain transactions of very highest magnitude which were not declared by the Petitioner despite specific directions of the Court. The only explanation that has been putforth on behalf of the Petitioner in that behalf is that he forgot to give complete statements and some of the accounts were dormant. It was stated and even mentioned in one of the affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India that some transactions even exceeded the amount of US$ 85,000. We are unable to accept in entirety the explanation rendered by....