On

26.5.2014, Crime No. 465 of 2014 of the Vellarada

Police Station was registered against the petitioner herein under

Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 12(1)(b)

of the Passports Act, 1967. The allegation is that in the year 2008,

the petitioner along with the 2^nd accused, who is an agent,

submitted forged records before the Passport Office,

Thiruvananthapuram and managed to obtain Passport No.

‘A5122125’ in his name.

2.

After the registration of the crime, the petitioner was

summoned and his statement was recorded.

3.

On 4.1.2019, when he landed in the Trivandrum Airport,

he was taken into custody. His travel document and a phone were

seized and he was later released on bail.

4.

He filed an application before the learned Magistrate

under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim release of the

phone and the passport. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned

order, ordered the release of the phone. However, holding that the

passport, if released would be manipulated and destroyed, refused

to release the passport.

3

5.

The above order is under challenge.

6.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the Apex Court in Suresh Nanda v. CBI [(2008) 3

SCC 674] had occasion to hold that while the police may have the

power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C., it

does not have the power to impound the same. Only the passport

authority has the power to impound the passport under Section

10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. He would contend that on

seizure of the passport, the police must sent 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 for the passport authority to decide

whether to impound the passport or not. Since the impounding of

passport has civil consequences, an opportunity will have to be

given to the petitioner to advance his contentions as well. He

would also contend that even the court has no powers to impound

the passport but can only revoke the passport for the reasons

stated in Section 10(7) of the Act. He would further contend that

though the crime was registered in the year 2014, the passport

authorities have not been noticed by the investigating officer till

date. According to the learned counsel, his wife and minor

4

children are abroad and they are staying on the strength of

dependent VISA of the petitioner. He has been issued with an

electronic exit free entry VISA and if he does not return back to

Saudi Arabia within a period of 60 days, his family comprising of

his wife and daughters will suffer irreparable injury. It is

submitted that the petitioner is prepared to approach the passport

authorities and apply for a fresh travel document, if the same is

required for. He would also contend that the petitioner cannot be

deprived of his right to go abroad, on the basis of such frivolous

allegations. He prays that necessary directions be issued to the

learned Magistrate to release the passport or to transmit the same

to the passport authorities so that necessary steps can be taken as

per the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.

7.

The learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the

prayer, submitted that the allegations are grave. The investigation

conducted till date reveals that the petitioner had obtained a

travel document in the year 1998 by furnishing false documents

and he managed to renew the passport in the year 2008 and 2018.

It is submitted that the passport which is held by the petitioner is

a material document and if the same is handed over, it would

adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

5

8.

In the course of proceedings, the Regional Passport

Officer was impleaded as an additional 3^rd respondent. Heard the

Central Government counsel, who submitted that though the fact

of registration of the crime was brought to the notice of the 3^rd

respondent, no request has b