SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 59

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
, J
Pushpal Swarnkar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Bail Application No. 1291/2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]

A court cannot impound a passport, as this authority lies solely with passport authorities, per the Passports Act.

Headnote:This judgment concerns the legality of a bail condition that required the appellant to deposit their passport, which the appellant argued was not permissible under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court found that the impounding of a passport is a matter for the passport authority, not the Court, thus quashing the condition imposed. The core issue revolved around the interplay of special law versus general law, citing the principle 'Generalia specialibus non derogant'. Hence, the prior order was quashed.

Table of Content
1. legality of passport deposit as bail condition. (Para 1 , 2 , 5)
2. special law over general law regarding passport impound. (Para 3 , 6)
3. hearings and arguments regarding the court's jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 7 , 8)
4. revision quashing bail condition imposed. (Para 9)

1. On a mention being made, the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. This revision is directed against the order dated 15/09/2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Bail Application No. 1291/2008, whereby the Court below while allowing the bail application has imposed a condition upon the petitioner to deposit his Visa & Passport (in original) in the Court at the time of execution of the bail bonds.

3. It is submitted that any condition imposing the impounding of passport is not permissible under law and the Court has committed illegality.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as also the record of the Trial Court.

5. By the order impugned, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg has admitted the petitioner to bail and also imposed four conditions out of which condition No. 3 reads as follows:
(Matter in local language omitted)
By imposing condition No. 3 the Court below has directed the petitioner to deposit original Passport & Visa in the Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with S.10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 even the Court cannot impound the passport. The Passports Act is a special law while the CrPC is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. , 2008 CriLJ 15991 in which the Apex Court has held that even the Court cannot impound the passport. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the passport authority under S.10(3) of the . Para 15 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the abovecited case reads thus:
'In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, S.104, CrPC 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 a 'passport' is provided for in S.10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the CrPC 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 derogant'. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under S.104, CrPC though it can impound any other document or thing.'

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent and the objector supported the order impugned and opposed the revision.

8. According to S.10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 only the passport authority is empowered to impound the passport. In this case, the Additional Sessions / Judge has imposed the condition to deposit the Passport & Visa for which he is not empowered. The Court below has committed illegality and exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it. Therefore, the order impugned requires to be modified.

9. Consequently, the revision is allowed and condition No. 3 imposed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Bail Application No. 1291/2008 vide the order impugned is hereby quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top