* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2008 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2008 IN ECIR 02/MZO/2006 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE The Assistant Director,FEMA/PMLA Enforcement Directorate ...Applicant/Complainant. V/s. Philip AnandRaj & Ors. ....Respondents ===== Mr.Rajendra Raghuwanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.Y.R. Mishra, adv.for applicant. Mr.P.Janardhan i/by.Mr.Prakash Naik, adv.for respondents. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State. W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 542 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2008 Mr.Philip Anandraj .....Applicant V/s. The Assistant Director,FEMA/PMLA Enforcement Directorate & anr. .....Respondents. ======= Mr.P.Janardhan i/by.Mr.Prakash Naik, adv.for applicants. Mr.Rajendra Raghuwanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.Y.R. Mishra, adv.for respondents. * 2 * Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 23RD MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. The short question that falls for consideration of this court in the instant application is whether the revision applicant who is the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate can impound passport under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act. This question has been directly answered by the Division Bench of our High Court headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in Writ Petition No.2432 of 2007 in Avinash Bhosale V/s. Union of India & Ors. While deciding identical question, our court relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Nanda V/s.Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 3 S.C.C. page 674 and has held that “the term “document” does not include a passport. If by an interpretative process, the Apex Court has held that even a Court cannot impound a passport, then, it would be highly inappropriate to interpret the term “documents” used in Section * 3 * 131(3) of Income Tax Act, so as to enable the executive authorities to impound the passport. It is also to be borne in mind that power to seize cannot be equated with power to impound. Impounding tantamount the retention over a period of time after seizure is made. Thus it is not possible to hold that power of seizure under Section 131 (3) of the Income Tax Act could be extended to validate impounding of passport”. The decision of the Division Bench being binding on this court, there cannot be any other view of the matter. 3. Mr.Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted with some emphasis that the special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before whom an application for release of the passport was moved by respondent no.1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. This is because, seizure of the passport was done by the applicant under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and not under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, if one takes a look at the Enforcement Case Information Report annexed by the applicant to the reply filed by it before the special court, it can be seen that the same concerns the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and not the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. In the circumstances, I find no substance in the contention raised as regards the jurisdiction. Since the * 4 * applicant has no authority at all to seize the passport, it cannot be allowed to continue to have it's custody. Hence, the application is dismissed. The applicant is directed to forthwith return the passport of respondent no.1. 4. With the dismissal of the main application, Criminal Application No. 542 of 2008 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.]