IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SWATANTER KUMAR,V.M. KANADE, JJ.
Avinash Bhosale - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Criminal Application No.103 of 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2432 of 2007
Decided On : 06/24/2008
It is also to be borne in mind that power to seize cannot be equated with power to impound. Impounding tantamount the retention over a period of time after seizure is made. Thus, it is, not possible to hold that power of seizure under Section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act could be extended to validate impounding of passport.
In view of the clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court holding the Passport Act to be a complete code in dealing with impounding of the passport, we have no iota of doubt that the respondent’s passport is without authority of law. In the result, cannot accept the submission made on behalf of the learned Solicitor General that impounding of the pass port could be made by having recour se to general provision under the Income-tax Act, regulating the seizure of documents. The writ petition, therefore, must succeed. In view of the clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court in case of Suresh Nanda, AIR 2008 SC 1414 we do not propose to deal with the High Court judgments, relied upon by the learned Solicitor General.
P.C.
1. We have perused the order dated 4th March, 2008 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 1564/2008.
2. This is an application filed by the petitioner being Criminal Application No.103/2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2432/2007 wherein the petitioner made a prayer that he be permitted to travel abroad during the vacation period. However, that could not materialize and resultantly, the
.application has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of. In the main petition, the petitioner has stated that the passport of the petitioner has been seized and is not now being returned by the respondent. The petitioner being citizen of India has definitely right to travel abroad and respondent should be permitted to return/release the passport which was seized on 27th December, 2007. It is averred by the petitioner that suspension of the respondent primarily is in relation to certain financial transactions which are alleged to have been conducted by the petitioner in an unauthorized manner. It is averred that proceedings under FEMA were initiated against the petitioner on 5th March, 2008 and they have been culminated into passing a final order of adjudication on 21st April, 2008 and it is this amount of penalty imposed to the extent of Rs.2,84,000/- which has already been paid by the petitioner and thus, departmental proceedings have come to an end. It is further averred that under the Customs Act, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and they have already resulted in compounding before the competent jurisdiction who by order dated 15th February, 2008 has permitted compounding of the offence and the petitioner has paid the compounding fee as directed by the Court and agreed by the department. It is also stated that two Show Cause Notices under the Customs Act have been issued to the petitioner and the adjudication proceedings thereupon have already been completed. Fine/penalties have been paid. Under these circumstance, it is stated that pendency of proceedings by the respondent under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, does not justify detention of the passport as complete investigation has already been conducted.
3. However, according to the learned Additional Solicitor General, it is averred that the petitioner is not fully co-operating. Secondly, the proceedings under 37 of the Act which further empowers the department to exercise their inherent powers under the provisions of the Customs Act, they have seized the passport and therefore, because of the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, they do not wish to return the passport at this stage. While file is still pending, an order of detention has been extended for a period of three weeks with effect from 20th June, 2008.
4. A list has been indicated before us which shows that the petitioner is not furnishing certain details in regard to his accounts with effect from the period 1997 to 2000 and the details of the credit card account. According to the petitioner, his statement has been recorded on different dates by the respondent department and furthermore, the petitioner has also issued letter of authority to the respondent to make detailed enquiry in relation to accounts held by the petitioner in Dubai during the period from 1997 to 2000. It is further stated that the details of account and credit cards held by the petitioner with effect from 2002 onwards have already been furnished to the department. The petitioner has further stated that he is willing to go with the respondent officers to Dubai and assist them for any enquiry which they wish to make.
5. During the hearing of the writ petition, we had passed an order on 10th June, 2008 which reads as under:-
."The Associate Solicitor General appearing for respondents -Union of India, upon instructions from the Officers who are present in Court, submits that they will complete their inquiry by 20th June, 2008 and if no material is found against t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.