Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

“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