IPC 307
Ganesh
(Querist) 05 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
A person is accused under 307. He is out on bail but his passport is kept by the court. Almost a year has passed. the court has read the charge and the accused had denied it. the proceedings are going on. Now the accused requires the passport as he has to go abroad for few days. Will he get back his passport. Are there any guidelines by Supreme court regarding this.
I had asked the above question and Hon'ble Expert Sukhija has given me this answer that The accused can apply to the concerned court for permission to go abroad and return of passport.
First of all Thanks for the answer. But my query is regarding the case of Suresh Nanda Vs C.B.I. AIR 2008 SC 1414 ( Decided on 24/01/2008)
wherein it was delivered by the Hon'ble SC that
"The Hon’ble SC has further opined that the Passports Act, 1967 being a specific Act whereas Section 104 of Cr.P.C. is a general provision for impounding any document or thing, it shall prevail over that Section in the Cr.P.C. as regards the passport. Thus, by necessary implication, 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."
Is it applicable in my case
Manish Singh
(Expert) 05 February 2010
Dear Mr. Ganesh,
the SC decision is very much applicable to your case too since the passport has been kept by the court for more than a year and it was held by the Apex Court that seizure can be for a limited period of time and if kept for a longer period, it shall amount to compounding. still there has been contraventions between the HIgh court judgments over the power of the criminal court to keep the passport under the custody of the court which seems to be agaisnt the judgment of the Apex court in the said matter. i m reproducing some decisions of the HIGH Courts for your perusal :
Pushpam vs The State Rep By on 15 October, 2009
Chennai High Court
11. The surrender of passport with the learned Magistrate cannot be contended
that it would amount to seizure or impounding. Only in the event of impounding
passport, the grievance of the petitioner will be considered in that
perspective. Pending trial of a criminal case, such an analogy cannot be applied
for such condition has been imposed only to have a control over the accused.
Avinash Bhosale vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2007
Mum HC
In view of the clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court holding the
Passports Act to be a complete code in dealing with impounding of the passport,
we have no iota of doubt that the respondent's act of impounding of the
Petitioner's passport is without authority of law. In the result, we cannot
accept the submission made on behalf of the learned Solicitor General that
impounding of the passport could be made by having recourse to general
provision under the Income Tax Act, regulating the seizure of documents. The
writ petition, therefore, must succeed. In view of the clear pronouncement by
the Supreme Court in case of Suresh Nanda, we do not propose to deal with the
High Court judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel.
Abdul Jaleel, S/O.Ibrayikkutty vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2009
Kerala HC
The facts of the case reveal that even if Crl.M.C. 1575/2009 4 it is
taken that petitioner was not served with summons, he was aware of the case
pending before the learned Magistrate and he had approached this court in 2007
claiming anticipatory bail. This court directed the petitioner to surrender and
seek regular bail in October, 2007. Petitioner did not surrender and get the
case disposed. Instead he surrendered only on 22.1.2009 and obtained bail as
per order in Crl.M.P 297/2009. As the learned Magistrate found that presence of
the petitioner could not be procured without a direction to surrender the
passport, a direction was issued to surrender the passport. The attempt of the
petitioner is to get back the passport and to leave India. Though learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is prepared to
return back to India immediately after getting extention of the visa and
therefore the passport is to be released and the learned Magistrate cannot
retain the passport and thereby impounded the passport as against the provision
of Section 10(3) Crl.M.C. 1575/2009 5 of the Act, on the facts of this case I find that if the passport is to be
released to the petitioner, he will not be available for trial. Petitioner was
absconding. To assure the presence of an accused, while granting bail court can
direct him not to leave India. For that purpose he was asked to surrender the
passport. Such surrender or its retention for the limited purpose cannot be
treated on impounding the passport. In such circumstance, I do not find it in
the interest of administration of criminal justice to release the passport to
the petitioner at this stage. Learned Magistrate is directed to commit the case
expeditiously to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Judge to dispose the case
without any delay.
Kalimuthu vs The State on 19 October, 2009
Chennai HC
4. In the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 674, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the
distinction between seizing and impounding of passport. The principles
enunciated in the above decision are that, a seizure is made at a particular
moment of property which was not earlier possessed, whereas impounding means to
keep in custody of law and to take legal or formal possession of property after
it has been seized.
5. As per the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the seizure of
the passport is for a long time, it amounts to impounding.
6. Having tested the present case in the light of the above decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the condition
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai with regard to depositing the
passport before the Trial Court alone shall be deleted and accordingly it is
deleted. The other conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai
are confirmed
