Important Point—Impounding of Passport cannot be done by Court under Section 104, Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ application, the applicant an accused of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the P.M.L.A.’), has prayed for the following relief:

“13(A) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the conditions imposed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad while issuing summons vide order, dated 18-07-2014 on the receipt of the complaint filed by respondent no.1 herein which came to be registered as PMLA complaint No.3 of 2014, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case stated above; or (B) That any just and proper order may be passed.”

2. It is the case of the applicant that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing Pharmaceutical ingredients. The company manufactures bulk drugs which includes the life saving drugs for the treatment of Cancer. A complaint was received by the Crime Branch, Surat from the ICICI Bank against one M/s. R.A. Distributors Private Limited and its directors alleging that the firm had prepared seventeen fake bills of entries and the same were presented before the ICICI Bank for the outward remittance. The District Crime Branch, accordingly, registered an F.I.R. dated 11th April, 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The registration of the F.I.R. led to a case being registered bearing E.C.R. No.1 of 2014 by the Directorate of Enforcement, Surat, for the offence of money laundering under the P.M.L.A.

4. A complaint was filed before the Designated Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur against the applicant herein and other co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the P.M.L.A.

5. The designated Court took cognizance upon the complaint and passed an order of issue of summons to the applicant herein as one of the accused persons with a direction to furnish solvent security of Rs.50,000/- and further to surrender the passport, if any. The impugned order reads thus:-

“ORDER

Complaint be registered as PMLA case, against all the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Accused No.1 and 2 be informed about lodging as well as the next date of hearing of complaint.

Issue Summons against accused No.3 to 79, for the above offence, with direction that they shall deposit their passport in the present Court and shall also furnish security for Rs.50,000/- before this Court. Summons returnable on 02.08.2014.”

6. The challenge in this petition is to that part of the impugned order whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit his passport.

7. The principle argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that while issuing summons, the designated Court concerned could not have directed the accused to surrender his passport. According to the learned counsel, the designated Court could have only directed the accused to furnish solvent security which has been furnished by the petitioner herein.

8. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order travels beyond the jurisdiction of the Court as the same is contrary to the provisions and forms set forth in the Second Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It has been pointed out that by virtue of Section 476 of the Cr.P.C., several forms for different aspects are set forth in the Second Schedule. Sections 61, 206 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. deal with the issue of summons and the forms Nos.1, 30 and 33 pertain to the summons.

9. The learned counsel further pointed out and relied on the provision of Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with the power to take bond for the appearance. It has been submitted that while issuing summons in the form as prescribed under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C., the imposition of a condition other than furnishing of the necessary security, is not warranted. The same is permissible only in the case of a