web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Courts Can Not Impound Passport

D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 06 Dec 2019

Posted on April 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows:

Time and again this Court is coming across many cases, wherein the deposit of passport is being ordered by the Courts at the time of granting bail etc. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India in Suresh Nanda’s case (1 supra) has very clearly laid down that impounding of passport is not power that is available to the police. The police have a right tomerely seize the passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C., but they do not have the power to retain the passport. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already clearly held that the retention of a passport for a long time also amounts to impounding of the passport. This is very clearly laid down in the judgment of Suresh Nanda’s case (1 supra). Apart from that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also clearly held thatafter the passport is seized and if the State was of the opinion that the petitioner was likely to flee the country or that he is at a flight risk, the only option available to the State or theprosecution is to file an appropriate application before the Passport Authorities to impound the passport for the reasonsmentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. The Passport Authorities shall give a notice to the accused and after hearing the accused, they will have to pass an order. Sincethe cancellation of the passport is an order having severe civilconsequences, the accused also has a right of being heardbefore the passport is impounded. The Passport Act, being a special law will prevail over the general law.

Next Para,

In that view of the matter, irrespective of the fact that whether in the present case the issue relates to the voluntary deposit of the passport or deposit pursuant to an order of the Court, the fact remains that neither case is supported by the law. If the counsel made a wrong concession, the same cannot be enure to the benefit of the prosecution. A party should not suffer for any mistake committed by the counsel. If the same is a part and parcel of the lower Courts order, then it is clearly opposed by the law as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Nanda’s case (1 supra). Therefore, for both these reasons, this Court holds that the condition about the deposit of the passport cannot be imposed by a Court while granting bail or for any other reason. The only option left in such cases, when the passport is seized is to take steps under the Act for cancellation/impounding. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the original passport is lost and the accused has applied for a duplicate passport and has flouted the Court
order. Basing on the written instructions received by him, he states that petitioner/A.1 is also liable for contempt of Court. This is also not correct and the order of the Court does not seem to suggest this. As mentioned earlier, neither the Court can impose such a condition nor can the counsel give a
concession and deposit the passport. Even if the passport is deposited pursuant to the concession made by a counsel, the same cannot be retained indefinitely by the Court or the Police till the trial is concluded.
In fact, in the decision of Suresh Nanda (1supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticed that under Section 10(a) of the Act, even the Central Government can only retain the passport for four weeks. Thereafter, a further order from Passport Authorities is necessary for retention of the passport.
After clarifying the law on the subject and holding that the impugned order passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is contrary to law, this Court leaves it open to the prosecution to take such steps as are warranted by law, if they are so advised to cancel the passport of the accused.

D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 06 Dec 2019
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP Landmark Case Obligation To Record Reasons For Impounding Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. | Leave a comment

Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018

Posted on October 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Now Hon’ble High of Punjab and Haryana also held that Courts/Police cannot impound anyone’s passport in India. Only Passport Authority can impound/revoke a passport in India.

Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Passports Act - Sec 10(3)(e) Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that, “It is settled law that right to travel is a facet of personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1836).”

13. This Court is also of the opinion that if the impugned condition imposed by the
Additional Sessions Judge is not immediately set aside, the petitioner in the near future
could lose her job.
14. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner who is having no criminal
antecedents and good academic qualifications is unlikely to abscond.
15. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the impugned
order dated 06th October, 2012 restraining the petitioner from leaving the boundary of
the NCT of Delhi as well as the NCR and the country without the prior permission of the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside.
16. The SHO/Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner’s passport forthwith.

 

Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Courts Can Not Impound Passport Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi Return The Passport To Accused Right to Travel | Leave a comment

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI on 4 June, 2018

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing squarely on Suresh Nanda Vs CBI judgment, High Court of Bombay, also ordered the CBI to return Jignesh’s passport within a period of three weeks from judgment date.

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI on 4 June, 2018

A little intro to Mr.Jignesh Prakash Shah here and a new book.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Do Not Leave India Without Permission Of Court Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Police Confiscated Passport | Leave a comment

Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016
Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh No Need To Implead Complainant In Revision Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport | Leave a comment

Indian Passport released or returned to Accused Judgments

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

List of judgments that can be used in your applications to request for release/return of your passport from Indian Courts.

Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court

  1. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi on 10 April, 1967
  2. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
  3. Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2008
  4. Sanjay Awasthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Jul 2015

 

Judgments of Hon’ble High Courts in India

  1. Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012
  2. Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016
  3. Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017
  4. Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI on 4 June, 2018
  5. D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 06 Dec 2019
  6. Akshay Vinod Kulkarni Vs Chief Passport Officer and Anr on 03 May 2021

 

Anticipatory Bail granted without surrendering passport condition

  1. Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014
  2. Sumit Kumar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

 

Passport impounded?

  1. Anand Tewari Vs Union Of India & Ors, on 18 September, 2013
  2. Mohd. Farid Vs Union Of India And Another on 20 December, 2016
  3. N.Chandrababu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 21 April, 2017
  4. Krishna Munivenkatappa Vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2017
  5. Suresh Rajan Vs The Passport Officer on 30 October, 2017

 


Index page here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport | Leave a comment

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2008

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, no one, except Passport Authority, can impound a passport; nor police nor Courts. Period.

The Apex Court held that

there is a difference between seizing a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, the seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document, said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts impounding of property/or document.

And also

Maintaining that, the Passport Act, 1967 is a special act and thereby prevails over the Cr.P.C. which is a general law, vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim \023Generalia specialibus non derogant\024. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.

This judgment has lead to lot of other judgments wherein the various High Courts in India had ordered lower courts to return back the passports of accused, that were either confiscated by the police as part of their search operations or crime investigation or had been surrendered to Courts, as a condition to obtaining Anticipatory Bail. They are listed here.

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I on 24 January, 2008

Citations : [2008 AIR SC 1414], [2008 AIR SC 0 898], [2008 SCC 3 674], [2008 LW CRL 1 503], [2008 SCALE 2 46], [2008 JT 2 174], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1189], [2008 ALT CRI 2 344], [2008 DLT 147 397], [2008 CCR 1 318], [2008 SLT 2 245], [2008 AIOL 107], [2008 BOMCR CRI SC 2 514], [2008 SCC CRI 2 121], [2008 AIR SCW 898], [2008 CRLJ SC 1599], [2008 MLJ CRL 1 1195]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/572504/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae74e4b0149711413efc

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Reportable Judgement or Order Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022 June 29, 2022
  • Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022 June 28, 2022
  • Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani on 03 Dec 2021 June 28, 2022
  • Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 09 Jul 2019 June 27, 2022
  • Ms New Era Fabrics Ltd Vs Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri and Ors on 03 Mar 2020 June 26, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,476 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,438 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (824 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (795 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (738 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (662 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (660 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (496 views)
  • MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 (439 views)
  • Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022 (414 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (310)Reportable Judgement or Order (296)Landmark Case (293)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (221)Work-In-Progress Article (212)Catena of Landmark Judgments (192)1-Judge Bench Decision (109)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (75)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (72)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions (36)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Advocate Antics (33)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (603)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (295)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (152)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (104)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (60)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (49)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (35)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • June 2022 (26)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Issue creating new R2 authentication tokens June 29, 2022
    Jun 29, 01:37 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 29, 00:08 UTCMonitoring - R2 customers that created new authentication tokens between 2022-06-28 15:00 UTC and 2022-06-29 00:00 may have experienced issues where they are unable to use the authentication tokens to authenticate with R2. Customers attempting to use these tokens may experience a 500 […]
  • Network Analytics v2 beta dashboard displaying incorrect data June 28, 2022
    Jun 28, 21:42 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 28, 21:41 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jun 28, 19:06 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jun 28, 18:31 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is currently investigating an issue where in some cases Magic […]
  • Increased HTTP 5xx Errors in Moscow, Russia (DME) June 28, 2022
    Jun 28, 21:08 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 28, 20:46 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jun 28, 19:24 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating an increased level of HTTP 5xx errors in our Moscow, Russia (DME) data center. We are working to analyze and mitigate this problem. […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 146.185.239.122 | SD June 28, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 462 | First: 2022-01-27 | Last: 2022-06-28
  • 109.239.60.218 | SD June 28, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 34 | First: 2022-06-28 | Last: 2022-06-28
  • 43.248.41.76 | SD June 28, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,643 | First: 2017-01-05 | Last: 2022-06-28
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 387 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel