Criminal Appeal No 277 of 1971
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd June 1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl
A No 45 of 1964
PK Chatterjee and Rathin Das for the Appellants
DN Mukherjee and GS Chatterjee for Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated June 23 1971 upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences under sections 420 and 420120B of the Penal Code but reducing their sentences
The charge related to cheat ing the passport issuing authority of the Hooghly 522 district by dishonestly inducing him to issue passports on the basis of false representations
This Court has limited the special leave to the question whether the passports were property within the meaning of section 420 of the Penal Code  Speaking broadly the allegation against the appellants was that there was a conspiracy between them as a result of which 1480 applications were filed for the issue of pass ports from July 1956 to April 1957 by Muslims and Chinese nationals
These applications were alleged to have been made by suppressing the real facts about the nationality and addresses of the applicants and by making false repre sentations in several other respects
The prosecution alleged that hundreds of passports were thus issued and delivered to persons who were not entitled to them under the law
Some of the appellants were alleged to be directly concerned with those applications and it was further alleged that the orders of the Passport Authority were obtained by dishonest inducement and false representation
A passport is a document which by its nature and pur pose is a political document for the benefit of its holder
It recognises him as a citizen of the country granting it and is in the nature of a request to the other country for his free passage there
Its importance was examined by this Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D Ramarathnam1 with reference to the provisions of the Indian  hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules made thereunder which were in force at the time when the offences were said to have been committed in this case
After referring to sections 3 and 4 of the Act and rules 4 and 5 of the Rules this Court observed as follows   possession of passport whatever may be its meaning or legal effect is a necessary requisite for leaving India for travelling abroad
The argument that the Act does not impose the taking of a passport as a condition of exit from India therefore it does not interfere with the right of a person to leave India if we may say so is rather hypertechnical and ignores the reali ties of the situation
Apart from the fact that possession of passport is a necessary condition of travel in the international community the prohibition against entry indirectly prevents the person from leaving India
The State in fact tells a person living in India you can leave India at your pleasure without a passport but you would not be allowed by foreign countries to enter them without it and you cannot also come back to India without it  No person in India can possibly travel on those conditions
Indeed it is impossible for him to do so
That apart even that theoretical possibility of exit is expressly restricted by executive instructions and by refusal of foreign ex change
  There can therefore be no doubt that a passport is a docu ment of importance for travel abroad and is of considerable value to its holder
1 523 The word property has been defined in the Century Dictionary which is an encyclopedic lexicon of the English language as follows the right to the use or enjoyment or the beneficial fight of disposal of anything that can be the subject of ownership owner ship estate especially ownership of tangi ble things   anything that may be exclusively possessed and enjoyed   possessions
 As has been stated a passport provides the several bene fits mentioned above
It is a tangible thing and is capable of ownership
There can therefore be no doubt that it is property
It is property of the State so long as it is with the passport issuing authority and has not been issued to the person concerned and after issue it becomes the property of the person to whom it hasbeen granted
Our attention has not been invited to any case where the question now before us arose for consideration on an earlier occasion
But a somewhat similar question was considered by this Court in Abhayanand Mishra vs The State of Bihar 1
The appellant there applied to the Patna University for permission to appear at the
MA examination as a private candidate representing that he was a graduate having ob tained the BA degree in 1951 and had been teaching in a school
On that basis an admission card was despatched for him to the Headmaster of the school
It was however found that he was neither a graduate nor a teacher
He was prose cuted for the offence under section 420 read with section 511 of the Penal Code
He contended that his conviction was unsustainable because the admission card had no pecuniary value and was not property
This Court repelled the conten tion and held that although the admission card as such had no pecuniary value it had immense value to the candidate appearing in the examination for he could not have appeared at the examination without it and that it was therefore property within the meaning of section 415 of the Penal Code
While reaching that conclusion this Court relied on Queen Empress vs Appasami 2 and Queen Empress vs Sashi Bhushan3 In Appasami s case it was held that the ticket entitling the accused to enter the examination room was property and in Sashi Bhushan s case it was held that the term property included a written certificate to the effect that the accused had attended a course of lectures and had paid up his fees
On a parity of reasoning we have no doubt that looking to the importance and characteristics of a passport the High Court rightly held that it was property within the meaning of sections 415 and 420 of the Penal Code
We may make a reference to Ishwarlal Girdharlal Parekh vs State of Maharashtra and others 4 also
There the question for consideration was whether an order of assess ment was property within the 1  2 Mad
3 All
4  524 meaning of section 420 IPC
The charge in that case was that the appellant dishonestly or fradulently induced the income tax authorities and obtainer an assessment order for less income tax than due
It was held that the order of assessment received by an assessee was property since it was of great importance to the assessee as con taining a computation of his total assessable income and as containtion or his tax liability
This Court also expressed the view that the word property did not necessarily expressed that the thing of which delivery was dishonestly desired by the person who cheats must have a money value or a market value in the hand of the person cheated
It was held that even if the thing has no money value in the hand of the person cheated but becomes a thing of value in the hand of the person who may get possession of it as a result of the cheating practised by him it would still fall within the connotation of the term property  in section 420 IPC This decision also lends support to the view we have taken for as has been stated a passport is a valuable document
Our attention has also been invited to In re Packiana than1 and Local Government vs Gangaram2 The accused in Packianathan s case was prosecuted for an offence under section 419 read with section 511 of the Penal Code
He was going to Ceylon and he used the permit which stood in the name of one Kumarswami while his own name was J Packiana than
On seeing the permit the Health Officer issued a health certificate
It was held that the health certificate was property within the meaning of section 415 of the Penal Code and that if a person dishonestly and fraudulently induced the Health Officer to deliver it to him he was guilty of an offence under section 419 IPC Local Govern ment vs Gangaram was a case where the accused obtained a certificate from the Deputy Inspector of Schools by stating untruly that he had passed the examination
It was held that the certificate was property  within the meaning of sections 415 and 420 IPC and that the accused was guilty of an offence punishable under section 420 IPC
In taking that view the Nagpur High Court relied on Queen Empress vs Appasami supra and Queen Empress vs Sashi Bhushan supra on which reliance was placed by this Court in Abhayanand Mishra vs The State of Bihar Supra referred to above
So as passport was a tangible thing and was a usefuldocument and could be the subject of ownership or exclusive possession it was property within the meaning of sections 415 and 420 IPC
There is therefore nothing wrong with the view which has been taken by the High Court and the appeal is hereby dismissed
The appellants who are on bail shall surrender to serve out the remaining sentence
PHP Appeal dismissed
1 AIR 3920 Mad
131 1 2 AIR 1922 Nagpur 229


Summary:
The appellants were charged under section 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was a conspiracy between them as a result of which hundreds of applications were filed for the issue of pass ports
The applications were made by suppressing the real facts about the nationality and addresses of the applicants and by making false representations in several other re spects
The prosecution alleged that hundreds of passports were issued and delivered to persons who were not entitled to have them under the law
Special Leave was granted limited to the question whether the passports were property within the meaning of section 420 of the Indian Penal code
Dismissing the appeal HELD 1
A passport is a document which by its nature and purpose is a political document for the benefit Of its holder
It recognises him as a citizen of the country granting it and is in the nature of a request to the other country for his free passage there
522 C Satwant Singh Sawhney vs
D Ramarathnam refered to Ahayanand Mishra vs The State of Bihar  followed Queen Empress vs Appasami Mad
151 and Queen Empress vs Sashi Bhushan All
210 approved Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh vs State of Maharashtra and Other followed
In re Packianathan AIR 1920 Mad 1311 and Local Government vs Ganga Ram AIR 1922 Nagpur 229 approved
The word property  is defined as the right to the use or enjoyment or the beneficial right of disposal of anything that can be the subject of ownership specially ownership of tangible things
Passport is a tangible thing and is capa ble of ownership
It is the property of the State so long as it is with the passport issuing authority and has not been issued to the person concerned and after issue it becomes the property of the person to whom it has been granted
Passport can be the subject of ownership or exclu sive possession and is therefore property within the meaning of sections 415 and 420 IPC 523 A C 524 G