IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M-35818 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.1.2010 Harminder Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.K.B.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ***** Crl.Misc Nos 65308 of 2009 Crl.Misc is allowed as prayed. Crl.Misc. No. M-35818 of 2009 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for release of his passport and for setting aside order dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which his claim for release of passport in case FIR No. 163 dated 1.8.2008 under Sections 302/201/364 IPC registered at Police Station Phillaur, district Jalandhar has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been found innocent by the police as is clear from the report submitted by the SHO of Police Station Phillaur dated 6.11.2008 wherein it has clearly been mentioned that on the basis of investigation and statements of witnesses, the petitioner has been found innocent and it has nowhere been proved that the accused-petitioner has committed the occurrence at any stage. The report of the police is annexed as Annexure P-4 with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Crl.Misc. No. M-35818 of 2009 [2] Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. 2008(1) R.C.R.(Cri) 897 wherein it has been observed as under: “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.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”. Reply by way of affidavit of K.S.Dhillon, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Phillaur on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that initially the case was registered under Section 364 IPC on the basis of statement given by the complainant regarding kidnapping of his son Jai Deep Singh and thereafter he was found missing. The dead body of Jai Deep Singh was recovered on Crl.Misc. No. M-35818 of 2009 [3] 3.8.2008 and offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was added later on. After investigation, the case was sent as un-traced and report dated 26.12.2009 in this regard was submitted in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur. Since condition for impounding the passport was issued by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar at the time of granting regular bail to the petitioner and now the police has investigated the matter and the petitioner has been found innocent, no purpose would be served for impounding the passport of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda's case (supra) has clearly held that if a passport has been withheld by the police in connection with criminal case then there is no justification for impounding any document such like passport as there is special provision under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act for impounding the passport. The passport is a special law whereas the provisions of Cr.P.C. are general law. If there is a special law then that will prevail and not the general law. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda's case (supra) and the facts mentioned above, the impugned order Annexure P-3 is quashed and trial Court is directed to release the passport of the petitioner forthwith. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE January 21, 2010. raghav