The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.214/2013 of Udupi Town Police Station. The police have registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Ss.406, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC. Passport of the petitioner having been seized by the police, under PF No.79/2014, an application was filed, under S.451 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate, for the release of the passport. Application having been opposed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, learned Magistrate by being of the view, that the police have made out prima facie case and since the applicant/accused is working in a foreign country, rejected the application, on the ground that, if the passport is released, definitely, the accused will flee from the jurisdiction of the Court and would not be available for proper adjudication of the case.

2. A Criminal Revision Petition filed assailing the said order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that the petitioner has not stated for what purpose the release of the passport was sought and, the investigation being not complete, the passport, if released, will affect the progress of the case, as there is likelihood of the accused fleeing from India. Assailing the said orders, this petition was filed.

3. Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, learned advocate, firstly contended that the Police have no power to seize or impound the passport. He submitted that the impounding can only be done by the Passport Authority, under S.10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 (‘the Act’ for short). Secondly, both the Courts below have not appreciated the case of the petitioner i.e., with reference to the provisions under S.10(3) of the Act and that the impugned orders being illegal, are liable to be quashed. Thirdly, the powers of police to seize the property, does not extend to impounding of passport and, that the provisions of the Act, prevail over Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court, in SURESH NANDA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (2008) 3 SCC 674.

4. Sri Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP, on the other hand, made submissions in support of the impugned orders and sought dismissal of the petition. He submitted that the investigation would be completed without any delay and the final report would be filed.

5. Perused the petition and considered the rival contentions.

6. Point for consideration is “whether the police are justified in retaining the passport of the petitioner, seized under PF No.79/2014?”

7. In the case of SURESH NANDA (supra), the passport of the appellant, an NRI, amongst other documents, was seized by the respondent, pursuant to registration of FIR. Passport seized during search was retained by the Investigating Officer. An application was moved before the Special Judge, CBI, for release of the seized passport. Application was allowed and a direction was issued for release of the passport, subject to certain conditions. Aggrieved, CBI preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court, which reversed the order of the Special Judge and refused to release the seized passport. Aggrieved by the said order, the Apex Court was approached for relief by contending that the power to impound the passport of an individual, has to be exercised under Sub-section (3)(e) of S.10 of the Act.

8. Sub-section (3)(e) of S.10 of the Act provides for impounding of passport, if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document, is pending before a criminal Court in India. The Passport Authority has power to impound the passport under S.10 of the Act. S.102 of the Cr.P.C., empowers a Police Officer, to seize any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence. Sub-section (5) of S.165 of Cr.P.C., provides that the copies of record made under Sub-section(1) or Sub-section(3), shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empo