CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27926 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Sandeep Khanna .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner complains that his passport has been illegally impounded in view of FIR No.266 lodged against him under Sections 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for a direction to the Trial Court to release his passport by setting-aside the order dated 15.2.2011. This is a case where the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 21.1.2005. One of the condition imposed while CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27926 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: granting bail was that the petitioner accused would not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and they shall surrender their passports/travel documents within 15 days before the Ilaqa Magistrate. This order is being termed as an order impounding the passport of the petitioner and the present petition is filed to allege that the passport has been illegally impounded. The immediate cause for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court is the order passed on 15.2.2011 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, where the petitioner had moved an application for permission to go abroad. It is urged that the petitioner is required to visit various foreign countries in connection with his business as he runs a construction company. As per the petitioner, he was earlier also permitted to go abroad and came back in time and had surrendered his passport before the court. The petitioner, however, would urge that his passport can not be impounded in this manner as the power or authority to seize the passport under Sections 102 and 104 of the Cr.P.C. is given to police that too in exceptional cases. Still the passport can't be impounded. According to the petitioner, impounding of the passport is permissible under Section 10 (3)(e) of the passport Act. Reliance is placed on Pushpal Swarnkar V. State of Chhattisgarh, 2009 Cri.L.J. 1062, where order imposing the condition impounding the passport was held CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27926 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: illegal and without jurisdiction. In Suresh Nanda V. C.B.I., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1414, Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed the difference between the words `seize' and `impounding' and has held that the power of the police to seize the property does not extend to impounding of passport. It is observed that even the Court can not impound the passport. No doubt, the Courts have expressed themselves to the effect that the Courts and police have no power to impound the passport but to me, this does not appear to be a case of impounding the passport. The word `impounding' has to be distinguished from the word `seize'. As is noticed in Suresh Nanda's case (supra), the power of the police to seize passport is recognized but the police has no power to impound the passport as held in this case. As is noticed, a seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or an authority takes into possession some property, which was earlier not in his possession. It is, therefore, noticed that seizure is done at a particular moment of time. If seizure of a property is retained for a period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/document. The word `impounding', thus, has been found to mean `retention of possession of a good or a document, which has been seized'. The retention of the passport may appear to be for sometime but this is not for the purpose of keeping it for ever and the petitioner has been able to get it back as and when he needed the same for the purpose of paying a visit to foreign country. If really the passport has been impounded, the same would not have been made available to the petitioner for the purpose of travelling abroad. The petitioner has been asked to surrender his passport before the Court CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27926 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: in order to only ensure his continued presence to face the trial. This condition has been imposed while directing release of the petitioner on bail. While granting bail, the Courts have to ensure the continued presence of an accused person to face the proceedings and the petitioner has been asked to surrender his passport, which he had voluntarily done. If the petitioner had not surrendered his passport, then obviously he would not have been released on bail and in that event he would have continued to retain his passport and none would have seized the same to make an allegation of impounding. The Court has power to impose condition while granting bail with an aim to secure continued presence of an accused to face the trial and this condition has been so imposed, which, in my view, can not be taken as impounding of passport. Section 437 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that when a person accused or suspected of commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extends to 7 years or more or abetment of or conspiracy or attempt to commit any such offence is released on bail, then the Court shall impose the conditions, which are given in the Section and are as under:- “(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27926 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it consider necessary.]” Thus, in addition to the specific conditions, the Court may also impose such other conditions as it may consider necessary in the interest of justice. It is to ensure this requirement of law that the condition was imposed in this case while releasing the petitioner on bail. This case, thus, can not be termed as a case of impounding of the passport. It is not even a case of seizure of passport by the police. The petitioner has a liberty either to seek return of his passport for the purpose of foreign visit or alternatively approach the Court for removing the conditions, which were imposed while directing release of the petitioner on bail. The Court may then not even direct the release of the petitioner on bail, if he is not ready to accept these conditions. In my view, it is not an appropriate case to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE