Case title:
Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Order:
25th July, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justices Mr. Abhay S. Oka & Mr. Rajesh Bindal
Parties:
Appellant: Chennupati Kranthi Kumar
Respondents: The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Subject matter of the case:
- The subject matter of the case is the return of the appellant's passport, which arose from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and his wife. The appellant was accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498-A, 403, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
- During the investigation, the police took custody of the appellant's passport and handed it over to the Regional Passport Office.
- The appellant sought the return of his passport, claiming his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Important Provisions:
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.):
- Section 91: Empowers the court or police to issue a summons or order to a person to produce any document or other thing necessary for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or proceeding under the Cr.P.C.
- Section 102(1): Empowers the police to seize any property, including passports, which may be used as evidence in an investigation.
The Passports Act, 1967:
- Section 10: Deals with the impounding of passports by the Passport Authority.
Overview:
The appellant's passport was taken by the police during the investigation of the criminal case against him. The police handed the passport to the Regional Passport Office, which required the appellant to obtain court permission for its release. The appellant applied to the court seeking the return of his passport, but the application was rejected by the trial court. The appellant then appealed to the High Court, which directed the 3rd respondent (Regional Passport Office) to return the passport subject to certain conditions. The appellant challenged these conditions in the Supreme Court.
Issues raised:
- Whether the police had the authority to impound the appellant's passport under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.?
- Whether the conditions imposed by the High Court, including the return of the passports of the appellant's wife and son, were legal and valid?
Arguments advanced by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the police had no power to impound the passport under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and that the power to impound passports was vested solely in the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967. He further contended that since there was no valid impounding of his passport, it must be returned to him unconditionally, as he had a fundamental right to travel abroad, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Appellant also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where it was held that the Police do not have the power to impound a passport and that the Passport Authority, as per the Passports Act, 1967 (PP Act), has the authority to decide whether a passport needs to be impounded. The appellant also pointed out the mere absence of an Impounding Order that had to be issued by the Passport Authority. Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 necessitates that there be a formal order before impounding one’s passport, which was missing in this case. The appellant asserted that neither the ineligible police nor the appropriate Passport Authority could withhold the appellant’s passport in the absence of a formal order to impound the same.
Arguments advanced by the Respondents:-
It can be inferred that the Respondent contended that a duplicate passport cannot be issued under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 (PP Act), and that the 4th respondent (the appellant's wife) can apply for the reissue of her passport if she establishes that her passport was lost.
The Respondent asserted that the impounding of passport by the Police is legal, and contended that they had the authority to call upon the appellant to produce his passport under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and that they had the power to retain the passport during the investigation of the criminal case against the appellant under Sections 498A, 403, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Respondent also contended that the condition imposed by the High Court, which required the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹10 lakhs by way of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the name of the 4th respondent and to submit the original passports of the 4th respondent and the appellant's minor son, was justified to ensure that the appellant would return to India as per his undertaking and cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the criminal case. Further, it was asserted that such conditions were reasonable measures to secure the interests of both parties involved in the matrimonial dispute.
Judgment Analysis:
The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Passports Act, 1967, to determine the legality of the actions taken by the police and the Regional Passport Office regarding the appellant's passport. The Court observed that the police had no power to impound the passport under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., and even if they seized the passport under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C., they were not authorized to withhold it; it should have been forwarded to the Passport Authority. The Court found that the appellant's passport was unauthorisedly retained by the Regional Passport Office without any valid impounding. As a result, the High Court's condition of returning the passports of the appellant's wife and son was deemed illegal, as there was no legal basis for retaining the appellant's passport in the first place.
The court thoroughly interpreted and analyzed Sections 91, 102, and 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), along with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. It established that the power to impound a passport lies solely with the Passport Authority under the Passport Act and not with the Police under Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that even if the Police seize a passport under Section 102, they cannot withhold it, and it must be forwarded to the Passport Authority.
The court recognized the appellant's fundamental right to travel abroad, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that unless there is a valid impounding order from the Passport Authority, the appellant has the right to get his passport back and travel freely. Earlier, the High Court had directed the appellant to deposit a significant sum of ₹10 lakhs and to return the passports of his wife and minor son before getting his own passport back. The Supreme Court found these conditions illegal and unjustified, especially since there was no valid impounding order for the appellant's passport.
The Supreme Court aimed to strike an equitable balance between the parties' interests. While it upheld the appellant's right to the return of his passport, it also allowed the 4th respondent to apply for the reissue of her passport based on a report about its loss. This approach ensured that both parties' interests were considered without violating their rights.
The judgment clarified the procedure for reissuance of the passport if it was genuinely lost, allowing the 4th respondent to apply based on a report without further proof. This aspect of the judgment provides clarity and guidance to the authorities and individuals regarding passport procedures. In essence, the court ensured that there was indeed a balance between the rights of the appellant and the respondent.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the condition imposed by the High Court regarding the return of the passports of the appellant's wife and son. The Court directed the 4th respondent to apply to the concerned Regional Passport Office for the reissue of her passport or a fresh passport, considering it as lost without requiring further proof of loss. The Court also instructed the appellant to cooperate with the 4th respondent in providing any necessary documents for her passport application. The rest of the High Court's order stood confirmed. In conclusion, the case of Chennupati Kranthi Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. dealt with the issue of the return of the appellant's passport, arising from a matrimonial dispute.
The court analyzed the relevant provisions, particularly Sections 91, 102, and 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the decision in Suresh Nanda v. CBI. It also found that the Police had no authority to impound the appellant's passport under Section 104 of Cr.P.C., and the relevant provisions of the Passport Act governed such matters. As there was no formal order of impounding or seizure, the appellant was entitled to the return of his passport. Furthermore, the court declared that the condition imposed by the High Court, requiring the appellant to return the passports of his wife and minor son, was illegal. It upheld the appellant's fundamental right to travel abroad and clarified that the 4th respondent could apply for the reissue of her passport based on a report about its loss.
Accordingly, the court partially allowed the appeals and set aside the illegal conditions imposed by the High Court. It upheld the appellant's right to the return of his passport and permitted the 4th respondent to apply for reissuance based on proper procedures. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while upholding the appellant's constitutional right to travel abroad.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
