The main legal point established is that the Passport Authority, and not the police or the court, has the authority to impound a passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

CM No. 19123/2017 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4373/2017

1. The petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a direction to Respondent No. 1 – CBI as well as the respondent No. 2 – Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh to release the passport of the petitioner seized vide seizure memo dated 03.03.2014 in complaint case No. RC. BD1/2014/E/2004, P.S. : CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi under Section 120-B r/w.409/411/420/467/468/471/474 IPC titled as “State (CBI) vs. Nirmal Singh Bhangoo & Ors pending in the Court of Ms Charu Aggarwal, CMM (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

2. It is contended that the petitioner was called for an investigation and inquiry in 2014 and the passport of the petitioner was directed to be surrendered. The passport was thereafter seized in 2014.

3. It is submitted that the charge-sheet was filed in the said case, for the investigation of which the petitioner was called, however, petitioner was not arrayed as an accused. It is contended that till date, the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused by the respondent – CBI.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case of Suresh Nanda versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 3 SCC 674 to contend that the CBI has no power to impound a passport.

5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as also by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. With the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the passport of the petitioner was seized and referred to respondent No.2 for taking action in terms of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He further submits that investigation qua the roll of the petitioner is still pending and appropriate action would be taken on conclusion of the investigation.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Regional Passport Officer submits that it is the Passport Authorities alone, which under Section 10 of the Act have the power to take a decision, inter alia, with regard to impounding, revoking or suspending a passport.

8. The Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda (supra) has held as under:-

“16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party (vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei).

**** ***** *****

18. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding of a “passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non