Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appellant, a non-resident Indian settled in the United Kingdom for 23 years, had his passport and other documents seized during a search conducted while visiting India. The seizure was related to an FIR based on a sting operation from 2001, and the passport was retained by the authorities (!) (!) .

2. The appellant requested the release of his passport to travel abroad for a short period. The Special Judge initially ordered the passport to be released with conditions, but the High Court reversed this order, refusing to release the passport (!) .

3. The appellant argued that the power to impound or retain a passport is governed by the Passports Act, 1967, specifically Section 10(3)(e), which authorizes impounding when proceedings for an offence are pending before a criminal court. He emphasized that the Passports Act is a specific law that prevails over general laws like the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The respondent contended that powers under the Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 102, 165, and 104, permit seizure and impounding of documents, including passports. However, the court clarified that while seizure can be authorized under the Cr.P.C., impounding of a passport is specifically governed by the Passports Act and can only be done by the passport authority under its provisions (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. It was highlighted that the police or courts do not have the authority to impound a passport directly under the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. without following the procedures laid down in the Passports Act. Retaining the passport without an order from the passport authority was deemed illegal (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court reaffirmed that the Passports Act is a special law that overrides general laws concerning impoundment. Therefore, the power to impound a passport is exclusively vested in the passport authority, and the courts cannot exercise this power directly (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court directed the respondent to return the passport to the appellant within a week. It also clarified that the respondent could approach the passport authorities under the relevant provisions of the Passports Act for lawful impounding in accordance with law (!) .

8. The court emphasized that it was not expressing an opinion on whether the passport could be impounded as a condition for bail, but rather that the impoundment must follow the proper legal procedures under the Passports Act (!) .

9. Overall, the judgment underscores the principle that special statutes governing specific matters, such as the Passports Act, take precedence over general procedural laws like the Cr.P.C. when it comes to the impoundment of passports (!) (!) .

10. The appeal was disposed of with directions to return the passport to the appellant and to follow the appropriate legal procedures for impoundment if necessary.