Allowed

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jan 2014CRL RC(MD)/874/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that police cannot impound a passport; only the Passport Authority can do so under the Passport Act. The court quashed the order retaining the passport and directed it be returned on conditions including an undertaking and bond.

What did the court decide?

Passport to be returned on condition of executing a bond and not leaving the country without express permission of the Court.

Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.01.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶6

CRL.RC(MD)NO.874 of 2013

¶7

Ramachandran Revision Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Trichy In Crime No.1 of 2013

¶10

Revision Respondent/Respondent

¶11

Prayer :- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement dated 13.12.2013 made in Cr.M.P. No.7862 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and duly set aside the order of the court below and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.VI, Trichirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.7862 of 2013 refusing to return the passport of the petitioner.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are given below:

¶16

The petitioner is a Srilankan and in the year 1989, he came to India as a refugee and later he migrated to Australia and settled there. His wife and her relatives were the residents of United Kingdom. The petitioner is a Overseas Citizen of India. He has two children and both of them are studying in a school. The petitioner is suffering from skin disease called psoriasis and therefore, he is getting treatment at Chennai regularly. The petitioner is having savings account in State Bank of India, Sirutholil Branch, Thuvakudi. Since all his relatives are at Australia and London, he often used to visit them and fly abroad. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

In the meanwhile, the present case was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 6(1-A) of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 for having possession of satelite phone which was prohibited in India. The respondent police seized the passport and OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Book and the same was remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichirappalli. The petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.7862 of 2013 seeking to return the passport and OCI Book, but the same was dismissed on the ground that since the petitioner is a Foreign National, if the passport and OCI Book is returned to him, there is a likelihood of the petitioner to leave the country and there is no certainty that he would return to India.

¶19

Mr.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial court erred in retaining the passport when the court has power to impound any document other than the passport. He would submit that Section 10(3) of Passports Act prevails over the general law and the passport authority is the appropriate authority to order impounding of the passport which can be done only after giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.

¶20

In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 1 MLJ 1195 SC in Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. In paragraph No.13 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though the police have power to seize the passport under Section 10(2) Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of Passports Act.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in case, the police seizes a passport, the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. On such letter being sent, the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not, since impounding of a passport has civil consequences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier judgment reported in State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 held that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party. Thus it held seizure of passport by any authority other than the passport authority and impounding the passport was clearly illegal. This Court by referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra in M.Khaja Mohideen Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Unit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in (2013) 1 MLJ (Crl) 720 held that the impounding of a passport by the Customs Authority is illegal and the same could be

¶22

¶23

done only by competent authority as prescribed under the Passports Act 1967.

¶24

In this case, admittedly the passport is seized by the respondent police. In the counter, it is stated that the seizure is only a temporary and it cannot amount to impounding of passport. It appears that passport has been seized even on 22.01.2013 and the same is retained by the police from the said date onwards and it has been remanded to the court. Therefore, the seizure and subsequent retention of the passport cannot be deemed as temporary seizure and certainly it amounted to impounding of documents. In the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the respondent has no power to impound the passport and the same can be impounded only by the competent authority under Passports Act 1967. Therefore, this Court in the interest of justice sets aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.VI, Trichirappalli.

¶25

In the result, the revision is allowed. The passport of the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall execute adequate bond to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and on further condition that the same shall be produced before the learned Magistrate as and when the same is necessary. Further, this Court also imposes a condition that the petitioner shall not leave the Country without express permission of the learned Magistrate and such permission shall be granted only after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondent as the case may be.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy.