Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in this order has held that
In this particular case, admittedly the police have not seized the Passport during the course of investigation. But at the time of granting bail the court has secured the Passport and kept it in the safe custody of the court and it amounts to retention of the said document and virtually amounts to impounding of the said document, which is prohibited under the above said provision of law and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court.
Very good judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. wherein Anticipatory Bail was granted but did not put condition to surrender passport.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014.
The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony.
Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics.
It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.
Not sure, what kind of judgment is this… Read and bare with it.
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.
From Para 8,
The plea in the counter affidavit filed in W.P(C) No.3885/2013 is that the passport of the petitioner in the said case was impounded under clause (c) and (e) of sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Passport Act. However, the show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 contains absolutely no reference to clause (c) of the said sub section. Moreover, there is no mention in the said notice that it was necessary to impound the passport in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interest of the general public. The only reason given in the show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 for the proposed revocation receipt of information report from CBI regarding registration of a criminal case against the passport holder. In fact, these communications sent by the Regional Passport Office to the petitioners do not contain any such averment and the only reason given for impounding the passport was the adverse recommendation of CBI in connection with a criminal case registered by it. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the passports were impounded under clause (c) of sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967.
From Para 9,
As regards the applicability of sub clause (b), the counter affidavit is conspicuously silent as to the material information, if any, suppressed or the written information, if any, provided by the passport holder while applying for issue of passport. There is no reference to clause (b) of sub section (3) in the reasons conveyed to the petitioners. There is no averment in the said communication that the passport was obtained by suppressing the material information or providing wrong information. In the communicated dated 5.9.2012, which was dispatched only on 7.1.2013, as is evident from the postal stamp appearing on the communication, there is a reference to an adverse police verification report, but admittedly, no such report was provided to the passport holders at any point of time, nor did the communication referred to any suppression of material information or furnishing of wrong information at the time of obtaining the passport. More importantly, the passports according to the respondents were impounded vide circular dated 14.9.2012, whereas the communication dated 5.9.2012 was dispatched to the petitioners only on 7.1.2013. Therefore, the said communication dated 5.9.2012 in any case could not have been the basis for impounding the passport.
From Para 11,
Admittedly, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners before this Court despite their having duly replied to the show cause notice. In my view, the show cause notices issued to the petitioners should have been followed by an opportunity of personal hearing to them. No such hearing, however, was given to them either before or after passing the order impounding their passports. This is yet another reason why the impugned order dated 14.9.2012 cannot be sustained.
Very important point from para 13,
Clause (e) of Section 10 (3) applies only if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the passport holder are pending before a criminal court at the time the passport is revoked/ impounded. Mere registration of a criminal case against a person does not amount to proceedings being pending against him before a criminal court. The proceedings can be said to be pending only when a charge-sheet is filed. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a communication dated 4.9.2013 received from CBI which shows that a charge-sheet against Mr. Anand Tewari and P.K. Tewari, the petitioners in W.P(C) Nos. 3885/2013 and 5153/2013 has been filed in the Court on 23.8.2013 whereas the remaining cases are still pending investigation. Thus, no charge-sheet has yet been filed against Mr. Abhishek Tewari, petitioner in W.P (C) No.5155/2013 and no charge-sheet either against Mr. P.K. Tewari or against Abhishek Tewari had been filed by the time their passports were impounded vide order dated 14.9.2012. The passports, therefore, could not have been impounded prior to 23.8.2013, when the charge sheet was filed. In fact, in Abhijit Sen Vs. Superintendent (Administration) Regional Passport Officer & Ors. 2004 Cri LJ 1281, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was of the view that the criminal proceedings in terms of clause (e) can be said to be pending only from the date on which cognizance is taken, by the Court, after filing of a charge sheet.
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in this straightforward judgment, set aside the condition to surrender the petitioner’s passport
From Para 3,
The petitioner is aggrieved against the condition made therein whereby he was directed to surrender his passport before the Court and was directed, not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
From Para 5,
The legal question as to whether the police are empowered to retain the passport of an accused under the provisions of Cr.P.C., has come time and again before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other Courts and it has been held that the Courts exercising its power under the Cr.P.C., cannot impound the passport under the guise of seizure.
From Para 8,
The objections raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases may not be of much relevance since what would be pertinent to decide in the present petition is the powers of police to retain the passport of the petitioner. The Passport Act which is a Special law will prevail over the provisions of the Cr.p.c., the General law.
From Para 9,
Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act specifically deals with impounding of passport whereas Section 104 Cr.P.C., allows the Court to impound the document to produce before the Court. The Passport Act overrides the provision of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of impounding passport. In the present case in hand, the order directing to surrender the passport indefinitely amounts to impounding of the passport itself.
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in this writ petition has held that,
the Passport Authority will have to take objective consideration while proceeding to exercise his discretion whether pendency of such criminal case warrants impounding of passport or not keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner. Apart from this in the present case what we find that the Passport Officer has proceeded to pass the order only on the premise that criminal case is pending before this Court and at no point of time reply that has been submitted by the petitioner that he was having matrimonial discord and the said criminal case have direct nexus with the same and in view of this, in the facts of the case, statutory obligation to record reasons under sub-section 5 of Section 10 also remains uncomplied with and as such, the order dated 26.10.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Passport Officer is free to pass fresh order as already mentioned above.
If any idiotic officer at Passport officer impounds your passport without application of her/his mind, use this order to show their BS.
Even though, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has dismissed this M.Cr.C, it categorically held that,
Another issue raised by the knife in this case is that,
the respondent No.2 preferred the revision without impleading the applicant as party, therefore, the applicant could not get opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order passed behind the back of the applicant is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that presence of respondent No.2 is required during trial and in the event of end of trial into conviction it would be difficult to bring the respondent No.2 back to India from USA for serving out the sentence. In such circumstances, the order of granting permission to go to USA is not justified and, therefore, it be set aside.
And here is the slipper slap given by court to knife:
It was not required for the respondent No.2 to make the applicant as party to the revision, therefore, the objection of the applicant that opportunity of hearing was not given to her before the revisional Court has no merit.
Bad Behavior has blocked 463 access attempts in the last 7 days.
