Passport Impounding Powers: Supreme Court Rules in Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (25 July 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 645

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Can the police retain a passport during a criminal investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a matrimonial dispute, clarifying the extent of police powers regarding passport impounding. This judgment is crucial for understanding the limitations on law enforcement’s ability to seize and hold personal travel documents. The bench consisted of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant, Chennupati Kranthi Kumar, and his wife (4th respondent). The appellant was accused of offences under Section 498A, 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During the investigation, police issued a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requiring the appellant to produce his passport. The appellant complied, and the passport was eventually handed over to the Regional Passport Office at Hyderabad (3rd respondent). The Regional Passport Office then informed the appellant that he needed a court order to get his passport back.

The appellant, who works in the USA, had come to India to perform his father’s death anniversary rituals. While in India, his wife filed a complaint against him and his family. The Regional Passport Office had earlier issued a notice to the appellant stating that his passport had been forwarded to them by the police. The same notice also alleged that the appellant was in possession of his wife’s passport and asked him to return it.

The appellant then applied to the Magistrate Court for the return of his passport, citing his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and his need to return to his job in the USA. The Magistrate Court dismissed his application. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in appeal, ordered the passport to be returned, but with the condition that the appellant deposit ₹10 lakhs as a fixed deposit in his wife’s name, and submit the original passports of his wife and minor son. The appellant challenged the condition of producing his wife and son’s passports, stating that his son’s passport was lost and he was not in possession of his wife’s passport.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the Court of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate–cum–Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, seeking the return of his passport. This application was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court directed the return of the passport, subject to the appellant depositing ₹10 lakhs and submitting the passports of his wife and son. The appellant then sought modification of the High Court’s order, which was also rejected. These orders were challenged in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section allows a court or a police officer to issue a summons or order for the production of any document or thing necessary for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The relevant part of the section is:
  “91. Summons to produce document or other thing:­
  (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.”
• Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the power of police to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
• Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the power of the court to impound any document or thing produced before it.
• Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 (PP Act): This section outlines the grounds and procedures for impounding a passport. Specifically, Section 10(3) of the PP Act, which deals with the power to impound a passport.

The Supreme Court has to determine whether the police’s action of taking the passport under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and handing it over to the Passport Authority was legal and whether the High Court could impose the condition of producing the passports of the appellant’s wife and son for the release of his passport.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the police do not have the power to impound a passport. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2008) 3 SCC 674], which held that the power to impound a passport rests solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967.
• He contended that his passport was never impounded by the Passport Authority and should be returned to him unconditionally.
• He argued that the condition imposed by the High Court to submit the passports of his wife and son was illegal and not supported by law.

Regional Passport Office’s Submissions:

• The Additional Solicitor General, representing the Regional Passport Office, stated that a duplicate passport cannot be issued under the Passports Act and Rules. However, the 4th respondent (wife) could apply for reissue of her passport if she establishes that it has been lost.
• The Regional Passport Office accepted that no order of impounding the appellant’s passport was made under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act.

Wife’s Submissions:

• The wife argued that the appellant’s claim that he never had her passport was false.
• She contended that the High Court’s direction was justified to protect her rights.
• She also pointed out the appellant’s conduct which she considered objectionable and alleged suppression of facts by the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the police have the power to impound a passport under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the appellant to deposit ₹10 lakhs and submit the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of his passport.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2008) 3 SCC 674] – The Supreme Court of India. This case was cited for the proposition that the police do not have the power to impound a passport. The power to impound a passport vests only with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967. The Court in this case had held that Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport. It was further held that under Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C., the police have the power to seize the passport but not to impound it and the seized passport must be forwarded to the Passport Authority.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – This section deals with the power of a court or a police officer to issue summons to produce documents. The court noted that the passport was taken under this section, which was not legal.
• Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – This section deals with the power of police to seize property. The Court noted that even if the passport was seized under this section, it should have been forwarded to the Passport Authority.
• Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – This section deals with the power of the court to impound any document or thing produced before it. The Court noted that the power under this section cannot be invoked to impound a passport.
• Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 (PP Act) – This section deals with the power to impound a passport, which vests with the Passport Authority.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court specifically relied on the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2008) 3 SCC 674]* to hold that the police do not have the power to impound a passport. The Court reiterated that the power to impound a passport rests solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967. The Court also noted that the passport was taken under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., which was not legal. The Court also clarified that even if the passport was seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it should have been forwarded to the Passport Authority. The court also held that the power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The lack of legal basis for the police to impound a passport. The Court emphasized that the power to impound a passport rests solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967.
• The fact that the appellant’s passport was never impounded by the Passport Authority. The Court noted that the passport was taken under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. which was not legal and there was no order under Section 10(3) of the PP Act.
• The illegality of the High Court’s condition to submit the passports of the appellant’s wife and son. The Court found no legal basis for such a condition.
• The fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. The factual aspects of the case were considered to a lesser extent.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the passport was required for investigation, but held that the police could not impound it. The Court also considered the High Court’s order to deposit ₹10 lakhs, which was upheld, but the condition to submit the passports of the appellant’s wife and son was rejected as illegal. The Court’s final decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the rights of the appellant.

The Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the fundamental right to travel. The Court rejected the High Court’s condition of submitting the passports of the appellant’s wife and son, finding it to be illegal. The Court emphasized that the police do not have the power to impound a passport, and that the power rests solely with the Passport Authority. The Court also noted that the passport was taken under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., which was not legal.

The Court’s reasoning was clear and direct. It relied on the precedent set in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2008) 3 SCC 674]* to reiterate that the police cannot impound a passport. The Court also emphasized the importance of the Passports Act, 1967, which specifically deals with the impounding of passports.

The Court stated, “We fail to understand why the passport of the appellant was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case. Therefore, the exercise of calling upon the appellant to submit his passport was not legal.”

The Court further noted, “As there was neither a seizure of the passport nor impounding thereof, the appellant was entitled to return of the passport.”

The Court also stated, “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.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the limits of police powers in relation to passports. It reinforces the principle that the police cannot impound a passport and that the power to do so rests solely with the Passport Authority. This decision has implications for future cases where the police may attempt to retain passports during investigations.

Key Takeaways

• The police do not have the power to impound a passport. They can only seize it under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., and they must forward it to the Passport Authority.
• The power to impound a passport rests solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967.
• A passport cannot be retained by the police or any authority without a valid impounding order under Section 10 of the Passports Act.
• Conditions for the release of a passport must be reasonable and supported by law.
• Individuals have a right to travel abroad, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on passport impounding and ensures that the police do not overstep their powers. It also protects the fundamental right of individuals to travel abroad.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The condition imposed by the High Court to return the passports of the 4th respondent (wife) and the son was set aside.
2. The 4th respondent is free to apply to the Regional Passport Office for reissue or a fresh passport. The Regional Passport Office shall process the application on the basis that her passport has been lost, without requiring proof of loss.
3. The appellant must cooperate with the 4th respondent by providing any necessary documents for her passport application.
4. The rest of the High Court’s order, including the condition of depositing ₹10 lakhs, was confirmed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the police do not have the power to impound a passport, and the power to do so rests solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2008) 3 SCC 674]. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. clarifies the powers of the police regarding passport impounding. The Court held that the police cannot impound a passport and that the power to do so rests solely with the Passport Authority. The Court also set aside the High Court’s condition of submitting the passports of the appellant’s wife and son. This judgment reinforces the fundamental right to travel and ensures that the police do not overstep their powers. The Court ordered the return of the passport to the appellant subject to the deposit of ₹10 lakhs as per the High Court order. The judgment is a significant step in safeguarding individual liberties and upholding the rule of law.