IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE..___ DATED THIS THE 25?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. EUSTICE C.R..RuMARAsW'A'r§é[y it CRIMINAL PETITION NO.i451,>?_2iOiO'ii'~R BETWEEN: Syed Iqbal @ Sayeed S/O Sanaulla, Aged about 30 years, -- ' Residing at No.641, M.B.ROad, ._ Khadri Mohalia, Kolar Town, . T Kolar. -T A ' -..L~Petitioner (By Sri. N.V. vejaig, A;d'v:oCa'te)4'*-ff}; AND: 1. The State of"i(arnVata!<_a',r. Represented by" _,Sub--In,,s;3ectOr of Ponce, _ Sampi'g..e'l-iaili Poiice Station, '-!3anga.|.Ore._ 'A 2. Centra.!._Bu'rea_u_Othfnvestigation, BeIIary__ Road, Ggmganagar, Bangaidre. ' Respondents
Sathish R. Girji, High Court: Government Pieader for R1,
Jadhav, Advocate for R2)
_ Ttiis Criminai petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
VV.Cfg’–..Cri’mVinai Procedure praying to quash the order dated 5.9.2009
2/’
passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Crime
No.11/2009 of Sampige Halli Police Station, Bangalore, as per
Annexure–A, which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions
Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV, Bang,alo_re._Vin
Criminal Revision Petition No.508/2009 dated 10.11.2.0~09_’;né__$i”Ber,
Annexure–B and order for the release of the passpor*:’,__”th.eirnobirléf
phone and the laptop to the interim custodx/._o’f th~e”petition’er4g_i.V
This Criminal Petition is coming on”for:adrnis’sion dia.y””-I:
the Court made the following:
This Criminal petition is’i–fi,i’e_d 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure”;§.rayi_rig the order dated 5.9.2009
passed by the’C_hief Metropcl:.i4ta–n”Nlagistrate, Bangalore in Crime
No.11/2009′ ‘of.Sarnpi__ge’1Hal’li l>olice Station, Bangalore, as per
A’n.ne-fiéuireln, E’wfi1ich«._._was confirmed by the Additional Sessions
Judg2e—alnd VPresi–dV’i’nVgC’V-Cfifficer, Fast Track Court~–XV, Bangalore in
l’ji”CriminalARievisioizfietition l\io.508/2009 dated 10.11.2009 as per
‘ “”i§nAize5<Li,,reeB order for the release of the passport, the mobile
7._’:’ph’one–..ar:»dthe laptop to the interim custody of the petitioner.
/
2/’
2. With the consent of the learned counsei Vfotrfithe
petitioner as weil as the learned counsel for the resp_o”nden_~t_..:th_is’= _
matter is heard on merits.
3. The primary facts of the case are.as’–A.or:’lder’:’ «.
That the Sampigeraalli Polic§.,….:h’a.ve Areg_isi:ere’d in ”
Crime No.11/2009 for the 0f.fené’%.s-“~9″i?l_F’~is’r=%?ble tur’id.ervv’§sections
419, 420, 468, 471 read with 1seguec%?ig3é{«’olf’viithdcian Penal Code
and Section 12(1)(io)4{d).(e) gift 1967 and the
petitioner was arirayied spring the course of
investigation,the’Po:lice*::havejtseiaed-Iseveral properties from the
petitioner via’, phone, H.i). laptop and
severai other pQrcpertieVs._’.’4V the petitioner preferred an
applipcationilziyefore the’~«t2Vh_i_ef.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore
for’:_release oV:f=.ti1e”‘*-passport, mobile phone and iaptop. The
learned iiéagistrate rejected the said application.
4. Feelttingy aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
Criminai Petition seeking for release of the
A”4″.’jpa_ss’poit his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner
Viofgt—..co’nfines his request only to release of passport.
ix’
S. It is the contention of the iearned counsei”f’f’o:f”L:’–thve
petitioner that the Centrai Bureau of InvestigationT”( ”
short) does not have power to impound’ the it
passport can be impounded by the Passport’:
Section 10(3) of the Passports Act: soon._.as_the p.asspo”rt is ” ‘
seized, CBI cannot retain the same.— :””vAt”–»tLhe most.,. they maY
forward the same to the” “Auf_tih:o’ri.ty for taking
appropriate action. ‘i’:3ut__in thaipagsport is with
the CBI. Thereforepfe.t:’tion_e.r:i’i.s entitiedi reiease of the
passport in hvis’%i*avoA1rr,V it
6. Learnedt4_couvns’ei CVIBI submits that the CBI has
vested the poi”/ve.rV:Vto seize the incriminating documents.
Avccordirigeittiy/, has seized the passport and other
docun'”‘ie.n’t’s_Vpwyhichwere used for the commission of the offence.
matter is=§un’d”er investigation. The CBI has aiso written a
tu44’i_i’e’ttes:.::to.astheV”‘i5assport Authority to impound the passport in
“The matter is under active consideration before the
Passport Officer. It is the contention of the learned
E’/.
counsel for the CBI that the passport is obtained on the basis of
the forged documents.
7. Section–10 of the Passports Act,
variation, impounding and revocation of….passp~ort’S”sand”-tra.ve.IV
documents. Section–10(3) of the Passports A’ct«.r’eaid.s
“10 (3) The passport”au”thority”-may_
or cause to be impounded or revoke allpasspjortyyfgor
travel document,– ._ _
(a) if the passport aut%hso’rity,.i1is:’ sa’ti:sVfi.ed–._that the
holder of th–eV_.pas:spoi’t:1’jor ‘trasve%..Vdo:c:{iment is in
urvavonigfuiifppo’sisess’s~on–..there-cf;”5
(b) the “travel document was
obtained ..?f»’th:_é-lystilppression of material
Vinformation.f–or’*_ the basis of wrong
fi«:.infoi’njatioAn’-p_r.ovided by the holder of the
p_assyport.V’or travel document or any other
Vylpevrsoh onthis behalf:
_ (Pro-video that if the holder of such passport
_’V-.,obtains.vV__another passport, the passport authority
‘{fshal’l’–..yalso impound or cause to be impounded or
.’ revoke such other passport)
éy
V’ ‘authority that a warrant or summons for the
(C)
(d)
(e)
(f)
if the passport authority deems it necessary_4s.o_ii-.53.
to do in the interests of the sovereignty~«~~ar3,*d.’__”_’
integrity of India, the security of India, fisiendly
reiations of India with any foreign cou’:9;Vt’r=,;;».pr
in the interests of the general pLi_-blicv; t – ”
if the hoider of the passport or,-“.i.tra’véI
document has, at any tirn”e,_aftervthe…isvsue”of’ it
the passport or travelf..document,__been
convicted by a in Indt’ia~–..for'”aa_ny offence
involving moral turpigtudetftvandglisbentenced in
respect thgreof not less
than p z y .
if pro1ceet1_irigs’Vi’n’ Vanvloffence alleged
to”hVaveDi4ip_ee’rii’fVVcornrriittedlhbyv”the holder of the
pa.ss’port are pending
before a crimiriall Court in India;
flf any.’ of” the conditions of the passport or
.’ _ »-f’trg.\:;ei~.,_doculmenthas been contravened;
“7[__.doic’ii_m__e’n;t””has faiied to comply with a notice
if–v.__’th’e._iholder of the passport or travel
un,dert’.i’sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver
up the same;
if is brought to the notice of the passport
appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the
holder of the passport or travei document has
W
been issued by a Court under any iaw for the
time being in force or if an order prohibiting
the departure from India of the hoider of they”—_
Dassport or other travei document has
made by any such Court and the passport.’.1’Lj~–..T’*’
authority is satisfied that a warra,.nft=.VV’o.r: .
Summons has been so issued or”an7ordery:|*ras._””‘
been so made.”
8. In this case, it is the submission of._the|earned..,cou_.nsel
for the petitioner that the passport h_a’s._becen seized. byvvfithe CB1
under seizure panchanama Now we are in
2010. Tit! ” nioitivbeen transmitted to the
Passport Authority action. It is the
contention of counsel for the petitioner that the C81
i’sMo’r. &eV,A4.’;:.–,r;ovi:”:=,frejici..ryto the passport After seizing the
passVp–ort,._~uVif retains the same, it amounts to
:’v._?*i’mpounding. support of his contention, he reiies on the
“*’i.deci_si’on of thet’ Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SURESH
C.B.I. reported in 2008 Crl.LJ 1599 wherein it is
“he’Ed. asgiu nder: 3271/
“While the poiice may have the power to seize
a passport under Section 102(1), Cr.P.C., it does not
have the power to impound the same. Impounding
of a passport can only be done by the paSspor_tic».r”
authority under Section 10(3) of the Passport..~Act,.’,’__’
1967. Even the Court cannot impound a pa:-;.s.po,rt,V:
Though, Section 104, Cr.P.C. stat_es._t_hat _–th’e'”Court~ _V
may, if it thinks fit, impound any idocumentaoi-..th.ing’«.-,,_
produced before it, this provision wi4|’i..oinly enayibiethe ” ”
Court to impound any docume.n:t”~~or thing othevr
a passport. This is because im_pfoun’d_,i_Vng passportiis
,_provided for in Sectioi’:._,_.’i:%0(3;iiA of.tne_v.,¥_5a«ssports Act.
The Passports Act is a special law :whil_e’t’ri.e_,’Cr.P.C. is
a gener’aii”‘l’aw:.iii, “well.,,s’ettie’ci”thiat the special law
prevails–_ov’e’r thejeneraiil’*l,a’w,; ‘
There«–.._Visr. apt’ difference between seizing of a
docwfiherit and “‘im_pounding a document. A seizure is
fl”rnad’e at} aiiiparticuiar moment when a person or
_iauth’ority,_;’take_s”into his possession some property
which was’.”,j~–eia=rlier not in his possession. Thus,
seizu-rev~..liAs’c1one at a particular moment of time.
ii””-__ii”*H,Aowe\/evr.,i:’ if after seizing of a property or document
‘7.the said property or document is retained for some
period of time, then such retention amounts to
it “impounding of the property/or document.”
fix’
9. This being the Iegai position, keeping passportifi/v~i:t’n.o’u.t
sending it to the concerned Passport Officer
impounding. It is weil settied |aw~~’t»haAt ‘.E:a4nno’tv.,
impound the passport. Therefore, “sheii
Passport bearing No. G2999124 in ofthe pegtitiorier Syed ” it
Iqbal @ Sayeed who is Accuseoi—-in”-_Crirne 1/£2009 of
Sampigehalli Police Station on the point of
jurisdiction to CBI, Crin7’e::V::Bran:<:h, {Chennai and re–
registered in Chennai. With these
observations," this' Ciiiimintjii 'Petition is disposed of.
Sdi.-E
Iu:a'g"é