The Passport Act, 1967 prevails over the CrPC regarding the impounding of passports, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Passport Authority.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.02/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Nikshepako ke Hito ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2005) (Annexure A/1), whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 451 of CrPC.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the present revisioner is accused in the Criminal Case No.02/2019 which is pending before the learned trial Court and facing trial for the offences under Section 420 of I.P.C. and various Sections of Special Act i.e. Chhattisgarh Nikshepako ke Hito ka Sanrankshan Adhiniyam, 2005. The applicant has enlarged on bail, but his passport bearing No.K 5488506 issued by the Republic of India has been seized by the police. Therefore, the applicant has filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking the interim custody of the passport, but the same has been rejected by the impugned order which is already filed as Annexure A/1. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and law, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that the power and jurisdiction to impound the passport of any individual has to be exercised under the Passport Act, 1967. He specifically referred to sub-section (3)(e) of Section 10 of the Act which reads as under:

(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document -

(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India:

He further contended the trial Court has not appreciated that the applicant has enlarged on bail and he has not misused the same. Moreover, the applicant has a business for which he has to go abroad for which he needed the passport. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A/1) releasing the passport from the police custody, in the interest of justice.

4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section 451 of CrPC filed by applicant on the ground that according to the material on record, Sure Mart and Sure Wealth’s Directors- Rajesh Mishra and Deendayal Soni and Associate- Prafull Chaudhary were found to have defrauded the applicant Surendra Preetwani and 6776 other customers of about Rs.90 crore by cheating and deceiving them by luring them with the promise of giving franchise to customers and getting 0 to 02% dividend on investing in Sure Mart. The matter was investigated. A case was registered against the accused on the Investors' complaint. Along with this, there is a charge of cheating of about Rs.90 crores. There are facts on record that Accused-Rajesh Mishra invested some amount of the money in his bank account, some money in the firm's account, some money in his family's account and spent some money on foreign travel. In this way, it is shown that accused Rajesh Mishra has committed the crime of financial irregularity of crores of rupees. The accused is trying to get his passport on surrender to do business abroad, and if this is given, the possibility of the accused absconding cannot be ruled out and it does not seem appropriate to provide passport on surrender to the applicant/accused Rajesh Mishra.

7. On perusal of the records, it re