IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No. M-975 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.02.2011 Gurvinder Singh Sidhu .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. M.J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the complainant. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) Crl. Misc. No.7606 of 2011 This is an application for impleading Inderjit Kaur as respondent. Application is allowed and the complainant is impleaded as respondent No.4 in the petition. Crl. Misc. No. M-975 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to release the passport of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued on 13.1.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that passport of the petitioner has been illegally impounded by the police whereas the police has no authority to impound the passport. Learned counsel for the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-975 of 2011 (O&M) -2- further submits that the power for impounding passport is with the passport authorities under the Passport Act and the police is to approach the passport authorities under Section 10 or Section 10A of the Act for impounding the passport but in the present case, no such direction has been issued to the police by the passport authorities. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I., 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal)_897. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State in Court today and the same is taken on record. Mr. Dhuriwala, learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have also not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on the file. Admittedly, the passport of the petitioner has been impounded by the police and police has no justification to impound the passport as Passport Act is a special law and special law prevails over general law. Only the passport authorities can impound the passport. There is a special act dealing with the specific subject and that should have been taken by the authorities. It is only the passport authorities who can impound the passport, although the police has power to seize his passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C but it does not have the power to impound the same, and impounding of a passport can only be done by passport authorities under Section 10(3) of Passport Act, 1967. This view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda's case (supra), wherein it has been held as under:- Crl. Misc. No. M-975 of 2011 (O&M) -3- “Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269]. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a “passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Crl. Misc. No. M-975 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim “Generalia specialibus non derogant”. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C though it can impound any other document or thing.” A similar view is reiterated in the decision rendered by 7-Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, (1978) 1 SCC 248 wherein at page 280, it was held as under:- “.... Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case (supra) that `personal liberty' within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. Prior to the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967, there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh's case (supra) was struck down as invalid. It will be seen at once from the language of Article 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one. It safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law here means `enacted law' or `State law' (Vide A.K. Gopalan's case). Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure.....” Crl. Misc. No. M-975 of 2011 (O&M) -5- In view of facts mentioned above, respondent No.3 is directed to release the passport of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. February 28, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE