The central legal point established in the judgment is that the passport can only be impounded under Section 10 of The Passports Act, 1967, and that except for the proceedings under The Passports Act, the police, court, or the department cannot impound the passport.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayers:

"a. Allow the present petition and quash the impugned bail condition no. 8 (iii) imposed vide order dated 17.12.2016 passed by Ld. Special Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, whereby the Petitioner was directed to surrender its passport;

b. Quash the orders dated 22.02.2021, 09.03.2021 & 28.07.2021 passed by the Ld. Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Bail Application no. 17332/2016, whereby the applications seeking permanent release of passport was dismissed;

c. Direct the Respondent No. 2 or the concerned court, where the Petitioner's bearing no. K9542194 is lying, to release the same in favour of the Petitioner;

d. Hold and declare that the Ld. CMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi or the Respondent No. 2 is not the proper authority to withhold the passport of the Petitioner;"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the passport of the petitioner is being detained by the learned trial court without any authority and in contravention of the law.

3. Learned counsel submits that while regular granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2016, learned trial court inter alia imposed the condition that the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any. Pursuant to this direction, the petitioner surrendered his passport bearing no. K9542194 and since then it is lying in the possession of the learned trial court. Learned counsel submits that withholding the passport of the petitioner is not tenable under law as it amounts to impounding of the passport which is not permissible under the law except under the proceedings under The Passports Act, 1967.

4. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, while the matter rested thus the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 6402/2021 against the imposition of the penalty in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 09.03.2021 in M/s Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Civil Appeal No. 1827/2018 and in the said writ petition also an application was moved for release of the passport which was later on withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that as of date no complaint has been filed by the department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by withholding the passport of the petitioner, the department has in fact imposed a restriction on the fundamental right and the right to personal liberty of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on Satwant Singh vs. Asst. Passport Officer, (1967) 3 SCR 525 and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement in Suresh Nanda vs. CBI, (2008) 3 SCC 674 wherein it was inter alia held that the retaining of the passport by the police authorities beyond a period of four weeks would amount to impounding of the passport, which power the said authority lacks. Learned counsel submits that it was further inter alia held that neither the police nor the court invoking the powers under Section 102 or 104 Cr.P.C. can seize or impound a passport. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgement in Praveen Surendiran vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., Criminal Petition No. 1892/2022 wherein it was inter alia held as under:

"21. The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Wherefore, the order rejecting the release of passport by the Court observing that it is held in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial is unsustainable. Therefore, the peti