It is an accepted position that the Police took custody of the Appellant’s passport in the exercise of powers under Section 91 of CrPC. and handed over the same to the 3rd Respondent. The direction to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the Appellant’s passport was completely illegal. As regards the passport of the son, it is taken care of as the Appellant has followed the prescribed procedure in USA regarding lost passports. The condition of returning the passport of the 4th Respondent could not have been imposed at all as the act of the Passport Officer of retaining the Appellant’s passport was completely illegal. Provision(s) of law applicable in case of seizure and impounding of passport, when it is permissible and procedure that must be followed therefor, explained. Law clarified on primacy of Passports Act over CrPC and conditions that may be imposed while allowing application for return.
[Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of A.P., (2023) 8 SCC 251]
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments.
Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
Case Comment: A relevant decision of this Court on the issue involved is in the case of Suresh Nanda. In the said decision, it was held that the power under Section 104 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be invoked to impound a passport. The reason is that the provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of CrPC. Police have power to seize the passport but not to impound the same, it is for the Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be impounded