Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

“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