- Case
- SANDEEP S/O HARISH KEWLANI v. UNION OF INDIA THR. ITS OFFICER EOW, OF CBI MUMBAI (Bombay High Court, 08-01-2025)
- Law
- Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Prevention of Corruption Act, Passports Act.
Facts: A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the petitioner, a film writer, director, and businessman, under Sections 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on a complaint by the Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons defrauded the bank of Rs. 300 lacs. During the investigation, the petitioner's passport was seized by the Economic Offences Wing of CBI. The petitioner contended that the seizure was unauthorized and that only the Passport Authority could impound the passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, seeking a writ/order/direction to quash the order dated 11.3.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on Exhibit-273 in Special Case No.3/2017 and to declare that the respondent authority cannot seize the passport under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issue: Whether the respondent authority (Economic Offences Wing of CBI) can seize and retain the petitioner's passport under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or whether the power to impound a passport is exclusively vested with the Passport Authority under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967?
Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that neither the police nor the criminal court can impound a passport under Section 102 or Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to release the petitioner's passport.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Passports Act, 1967, is a special enactment dealing specifically with passports, and its provisions prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While Section 102 of the Code empowers a police officer to seize property suspected of being stolen or connected to an offence, it does not grant the power to impound a passport. The power to impound a passport is exclusively vested with the Passport Authority under Section 10 of the Passports Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Nanda vs. CBI and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Praveen Surendran vs. State of Karnataka to support its conclusion that even if a passport is seized under Section 102 of the Code, it must be forwarded to the Passport Authority for a decision on whether it should be impounded. The Court also noted the difference between "seizing" and "impounding" a document, with impounding implying taking legal or formal possession.
