impound a passport=the authority to impound a passport is the Passport Authority and the police, who seizes it during the course of investigation and the court in which the same is produced do not have the power to impound and that if the passport is to be impounded, it should be sent to the Passport Authority along with a request to impound the passport. Any order passed by the Passport Authority can be challenged by the aggrieved party

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/01/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR CRL.R.C(MD)No.11 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 M.Ismayil ..Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police Airport Police Station, Trichy, Crime No.396 of 2011. ..Respondent Prayer Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1970 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, dated 14.11.2011 and to set aside the same. !For Petitioner ... M/s.N.Sankar Ganesh ^For Respondent ... Mrs.S.Prabha Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side) :ORDER Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondent/Police. The Criminal Revision Case can be disposed of on a short point of interpretation of law and hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case at the stage of admission itself, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the connected papers produced by the petitioner in the form of typed-set of papers. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) also concedes that the Criminal Revision Case can be disposed of in the manner pointed out above. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.396 of 2011, registered on the file of the Airport Police Station, Trichy, for alleged offences under Section 419 and 420 IPC. Besides arresting the petitioner/accused in the said case, the respondent/Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy also seized his passport bearing Passport Number H 8841154 and produced it in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy. The petitioner/accused was released on bail subsequently. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., praying for the return of his passport. The learned Judicial Magistrate, accepting the contention of the respondent that the petitioner/accused would flee from justice if the passport was released, dismissed the said petition, namely, Cr.M.P.No.1970 of 2011 by the impugned order dated 14.11.2011. It is surprising to note that the learned Judicial Magistrate, even after narrating the relevant passage in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 1 MLJ(Crl)1195(SC)=(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl)121, chose to dismiss the said petition. 3. In the above cited case, Honourable Supreme Court has stated that the Court does not have the power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C to impound the passport, that the police who seized the passport using its authority given under Section 102 Cr.P.C also cannot impound the same and that if the passport is to be impounded, it must be sent to the Passport Authority with a request for impounding the same. The learned Judicial Magistrate observed that the said observation made by the Supreme Court in the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of this case. This Court wonders how the learned Judicial Magistrate could have distinguished the facts of the case from the facts of the case dealt with by the Supreme Court. Without elaborating as to how the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case dealt with by the Supreme Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate seems to have simply executed his pre-conceived decision to negative the claim made by the petitioner. 4. It is pertinent to note that the Honourable Supreme Court in clear and unambiguous terms has held that the authority to impound a passport is the Passport Authority and the police, who seizes it during the course of investigation and the court in which the same is produced do not have the power to impound and that if the passport is to be impounded, it should be sent to the Passport Authority along with a request to impound the passport. Any order passed by the Passport Authority can be challenged by the aggrieved party. In the case that was decided by the Supreme Court, the ultimate direction issued was that the police should send the passport along with a request to the Passport Authority for impounding it and the passport-holder could approach the passport Authority to get the same. 5. In this case, no violation of the provisions of the Passport Act has been alleged. Under such circumstances, had the learned Judicial Magistrate directed his Office or the Police to send the passport to the Passport Office where from the petitioner can obtain it by making necessary application, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate would have been somewhat sustainable. But the learned Judicial Magistrate has gone to the extent of simply dismissing the petition on the premise that if the petitioner was given the passport, he would flee from justice. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court. It is totally unsustainable, besides being against the view expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court. 6.Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Criminal Revision Case deserves to be allowed, with the result that the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, dated 14.11.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.1970 of 2011 in Cr.No.396 of 2011 shall be set aside and the said Cr.M.P shall stand allowed, directing return of the passport of the petitioner bearing Passport Number H 8841154. By way of clarification, it is made clear that this Order shall not come in the way of the Police separately applying to the Passport Authority for impounding the passport under the provisions of the Passport Act. The said liberty given to the police is not a licence either to the Police or to the Court to withhold the passport and refuse to hand it over to the petitioner in compliance with this Order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. vsn To 1. The Inspector of Police Airport Police Station, Trichy. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.