..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2008 Singaram Pandian. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.V.N.Shingapurkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Counsel for respondent No.2-CBI. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st November, 2008. DATED : 21st November, 2008. DATED : 21st November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 - CBI. 2. The petitioner is seeking directions to respondent No.2 - CBI to return the passport seized by them during investigation. 3. The petitioner had preferred an application before the learned Sessions Judge for return of the passport. The learned Sessions Judge directed the CBI, BS & FC to send the passport of the applicant - ..(2).. accused to the Passport Office. Being aggrieved by this order, the present revision application has been preferred. The said passport is seized in R.C. No.08(E)/2005. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the investigating agency cannot impound the passport of the applicant. He submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I. Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I. Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 989 2008 AIR SCW 989 2008 AIR SCW 989, the investigating agency cannot retain the passport with them. 5. I have perused the said decision. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has categorically observed that the investigating agency can seize the passport during investigation. Thereafter the Supreme Court has observed that thereafter the investigating agency cannot impound the passport, but the proper course would have to be that the investigating agency must sent it alongwith the 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 ..(3).. Passports Act, 1967. Thus, it is seen that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Nanda Suresh Nanda Suresh Nanda (supra). In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. Revision application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)