( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, viz. , The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Hyderabad and the Station House Officer, Rein Bazar Police Station, Mir Chowk Sub-Division, South Zone, Hyderabad, in seizing the passport of the petitioner, bearing No. 239348 issued by the Government of Qatar, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the petitioner s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to order release of the passport in favour of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THIS Writ Petition in the first instance came up for admission before a learned single Judge who by Order dated 25-9-1995 referred the same for consideration and disposal by a Division Bench as in the view of the learned Judge the case involves important questions of law for consideration and decision. Therefore, this Writ Petition is posted before us.

( 3 ) THE necessary facts as disclosed from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition are as follows : Petitioner who was born and brought up in India was married to Ali Goerab, a national and citizen of Qatar. After the marriage the petitioner is residing with her husband in Qatar. They have seven children. In the year 1995 petitioner came to India to stay for some time with her brothers and parents at Hyderabad. On 28-6-1995 wife of the younger brother of the petitioner died in a fire accident in the house. Police registered the same initially under Section 174, Cr. P. C. and subsequently altered it to one under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. Police registered the same as Crime No. 87 of 1995 against all the members of the family including the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the 2nd respondent seized the passport of the petitioner and deposited the same with XVI, Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as disclosed by the Remand Report dated 5-7-1995. The seizure of the passport by the 2nd respondent, is assailed in this writ petition, on the ground that, except under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) the police have no authority or jurisdiction to seize the passport and as no steps are taken as required under the Passport Act in this direction the seizure of the passport of the petitioner should be quashed and the passport has to be released in favour of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THIS writ Petition is opposed by the respondents. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent submits that under the general power of investigation the police have always got the power to seize the incriminating material and as the petitioner is a permanent resident of a foreign country, viz. Qatar, in order to see that the petitioner who is an accused in the criminal case will not leave India before the criminal case is decided the police are justified in seizing the passport of the petitioner.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the questions of law to be decided in the writ petition, this Court requested Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, Senior Advocate of this Court to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae. Sri Narasimha Reddy submits that under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with the provisions of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code the police have the power to seize the passport of a person who is facing a criminal trial. He submitted that it is always open to the petitioner to approach the concerned criminal Court for release of the passport in her favour as provided under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 6 ) IN view of the rival contentions the point for determination in this writ petition is whether the police can seize the passport of the petitioner without reference to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 ?

( 7 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, we may usefully notice certain provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act No. 15 of 1967) (her