The High Court held that police lack the power to impound passports, which is exclusive to passport authorities. Retention of a seized passport amounts to illegal impounding.
Criminal revision allowed; order of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate set aside; petitioner directed to get passport returned forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2011
N.Selvaraj .. Petitioner Vs State rep. By the Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore Police Station, Chennai – 600 008 .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2357 of 2007 in Crime No.635 of 2007, dated 25.10.2007. For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Kathirravan, for M/s.A.K.Rajeswari Associates. For Respondent : Mr.M.F.Shabana, Gov. Adv.(Crl. Side), assisted by Dr.D.Simon, ORDER
Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2357 of 2007 on 25.10.2007, the present revision has been filed.
“ 12. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word “ impound” has been defined to mean “ to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law”. Thus, the word “ impounding” really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized.”
“15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104, Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a “ Passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation 9th Edition pg.133). This principle is expressed in the maxim “Generalia specialibus non derogant”. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the court under Section 104, Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing” 8. Apart from that for more than 9 years, the respondent police yet to complete the investigation and file a final report. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the passport in the court. 9. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed and the order passed by the court below is set aside and the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is directed to return the passport to the petitioner forthwith. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
Copy to: The section officer, Criminal section, High Court, Madras-104.
+1cc to M.R.T.P.Kathiravan, Advocate SR.No.2268/17 +1cc to Dr.D.Simon, CGSC., sR.No.2599/17
Crl.R.C.No.451 of 2011
SDR 11.10.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police has the power to retain/seize a passport beyond immediate seizure.
Whether Section 10(3) of the Passports Act precludes police from impounding passports under Section 104 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Nanda vs. CBIRelied on¶15
Suresh Nanda vil. C.B.I. in 2008(5) CTC 277
5 provisions across 2 enactments
N. Selvaraj
State
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
