Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

“Supreme Court Rules: Passport Authority, Not Police, Holds Power to Impound Passports”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on July 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the power to impound passports lies solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and not with the police. The ruling came in response to a matrimonial dispute between Chennupati Kranthi Kumar, the appellant, and his wife (4th respondent), where the return of the appellant’s passport was a matter of contention.

The case (Criminal Appeal Nos.1601–1602 of 2023) involved the appellant facing prosecution for various offenses, and the police had called for the submission of his passport during the investigation. However, the Court noted that there was no legal basis for the police to impound the passport in the first place, as the relevant provisions under the Passports Act prevail over Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

“The provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of Cr.P.C.,” the Court clarified, citing its previous judgment in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court further emphasized that if the police exercise their power to seize a passport under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., they cannot withhold it but must promptly forward it to the Passport Authority, which will then decide whether the passport should be impounded.

Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had acted improperly when it imposed conditions on the release of the appellant’s passport, including the requirement to return the passports of his wife and minor son. The Court declared that such a condition was completely illegal since there was no lawful impounding of the appellant’s passport.

“The direction to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport was completely illegal,” the Court stated.

However, the Court did permit the wife (4th respondent) to apply to the concerned Regional Passport Office for the reissuance of her passport, treating it as lost without further proof of loss beyond filing a report to the police. The appellant was directed to provide necessary cooperation in obtaining the passport by providing required documents as per Passport Rules, 1980.

Date of Decision: July 25, 2023

Chennupati Kranthi Kumar   vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.       

Latest Legal News