Bombay High Court Declares Police Seizure of Passport Illegal Under Section 102 CrPC: “Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passports as Per the Passports Act, 1967”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and declared that the seizure and retention of the petitioner’s passport by the police, under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), was unauthorized and beyond the powers granted by law. The court ordered the release of the passport and clarified that only the Passport Authority, as per Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, has the authority to impound a passport.

Facts:

1. The petitioner is a professional engaged in the film industry and business.
2. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against him for allegations of fraud under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The case involved allegations that the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, duped the Bank of Baroda by fraudulently obtaining a cash credit facility of ₹300 lakhs between 2013-2016, which was later declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
4. During the investigation, the police seized the petitioner’s passport under Section 102 of the CrPC, preventing him from traveling abroad.
5. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this seizure, contending that it was illegal and violated his right to travel.

Issues:

1. Whether the respondent (police) has the authority to seize and retain a passport under Section 102 of the CrPC?
2. Does the seizure and prolonged retention of the passport without invoking the provisions of the Passports Act constitute an unauthorized action?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The seizure of the passport is illegal because the CrPC does not empower the police to impound passports. This authority is solely vested with the Passport Authority under Section 10 of the Passports Act.
2. The seizure violates the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad for personal and professional reasons.
3. The rejection of the application for the passport’s release by the lower court is arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The passport was seized as part of the investigation into the allegations of economic offenses, which are serious in nature.
2. The petitioner has already been granted permission to travel abroad by the lower court, subject to conditions. Thus, the petition is infructuous.
3. Section 102 of the CrPC empowers the police to seize property connected to an offense, including passports.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 102 of the CrPC: This section allows police officers to seize property suspected of being stolen or involved in the commission of an offense. However, it does not empower them to impound or retain a passport indefinitely.
2. Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967: This special law governs the issuance, suspension, and impounding of passports. It provides that only the Passport Authority can impound a passport, and even this must follow the procedural safeguards outlined in the Act.
3. Distinction Between Seizure and Impounding:
   • Seizure: A temporary act of taking possession of an item during an investigation.
   • Impounding: A formal and long-term act of retaining possession under legal authority.
   • The court clarified that impounding a passport requires following the specific provisions of the Passports Act, which supersede the general provisions of the CrPC.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Praveen Surendran v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court):
   • Held that the Passports Act is a special law, and its provisions prevail over the general provisions of the CrPC.
   • The police cannot impound passports under Section 102 or 104 of the CrPC.
2. Suresh Nanda v. CBI (Supreme Court):
   • Clarified that the power to impound a passport rests solely with the Passport Authority.
   • The police can seize a passport under Section 102 but must forward it to the Passport Authority for further action.
3. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of A.P.:
   • Reaffirmed that the Passports Act governs matters related to passports, and the police or criminal courts cannot bypass this law.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The Passports Act is a special law that takes precedence over the general provisions of the CrPC. Therefore, actions related to passports must comply with the specific provisions of the Passports Act.
2. Section 102 of the CrPC allows police to seize property, but it does not authorize them to retain or impound passports. Prolonged retention of a passport constitutes impounding, which is outside the police’s jurisdiction.
3. The Passport Authority alone has the power to decide whether a passport should be impounded. The police’s failure to forward the seized passport to the Passport Authority rendered their action unauthorized and illegal.

Conclusion:

The court issued the following directives:

1. The respondent authority must release the petitioner’s passport.
2. The respondent may take appropriate action under Section 10 of the Passports Act if necessary.
3. The petitioner must inform the respondent authority and the special court of his travel plans, including dates, addresses, and contact details, and report back upon his return.

Implications:

1. Strengthening Procedural Safeguards: The judgment reaffirms that procedural safeguards under special laws like the Passports Act cannot be circumvented by general provisions of the CrPC.
2. Balancing Rights and Investigations: The court struck a balance by allowing the petitioner to travel abroad while imposing conditions to address concerns of absconding.
3. Clarifying Legal Authority: This ruling clarifies the limited scope of police powers regarding passports and emphasizes the supremacy of the Passports Act.

Also Read – Rajasthan High Court Directs Continuity of Service Until 62 Years for Ayurvedic Department Employees: Orders Pension Refixation, Arrears, and Compliance with Supreme Court-Affirmed Precedents