The authority to impound a Passport lies solely with the Passport authority under the Passports Act, not with the police or courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

1. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and set aside impugned order dated 11.3.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on Exhibit-273 in Special Case No.3/2017 as being arbitrary, illegal, capricious, and against settled principles of law, and

2. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to hold and declare that the respondent authority cannot seize Passport invoking provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the act of the respondent authority of seizing the Passport is arbitrary, illegal, and capricious and direct the respondent authority to release and hand over the Passport to the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel Shri A.S.Kesari for the petitioner and learned counsel Shri P.Sathianathan for the respondent authority. By consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in film industry as Writer and Director in Bollywood and also a Businessman. First Information Report was lodged against him under Sections 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The crime was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 2.6.2017 by the Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Nagpur against him and other accused persons on an allegation that accused persons along with other co-accused persons duped the bank during period 2013-2016. As per the prosecution case, accused No.1 being Proprietor of S.K.Traders along with other co-accused persons approached the Bank of Baroda and obtained Cash Credit Facility to the tune of Rs.300 lacs for his business purpose. Subsequently, loan account was converted into Non-performing Assets on 30.6.2016. It revealed to the investigating agency that accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly diverted the Cash Credit Facility and caused a wrongful loss to the bank. During course of the investigation, Passport of the petitioner was seized. As per contentions of the petitioner, for his business purpose, he has to travel various countries. The respondent authority unauthorizedly seized the said Passport. In fact, the respondent authority has no right to seize and impound the said Passport by invoking provisions under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 is a special provision and impounding of Passport can only be done by the Passport authority under the said Section and, therefore, seizing and impounding of the Passport is illegal activity and as such the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The application moved by the petitioner for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to release the Passport is illegally rejected by learned Judge below and, therefore, the said order requires to be quashed and set aside.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Praveen Surendran vs. State of Karnataka and anr, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1661.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent authority strongly opposed the petition and submitted that learned Judge below has already permitted the petitioner to travel abroad. As far as further permission to travel abroad is concerned, the petitioner can approach the authority and the authority can reconsider the same. As such, the petition becomes infructuous and the same is liable to be disposed of. It is further contended that by invoking provisions under Section 102 of the Code, police have powers to seize the Passport.

6. The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authority does not have powers to seize the Passport in connection with the crime registered against the petitioner. The powers to seize Passports are only vested with the Pa