Accordingly, the appellant submitted his passport to the concerned police station, which in turn, handed over the original passport to the 3 respondent – Regional Passport Office at Hyderabad. Prior to that, on 19 January 2021, the 3 respondent issued a notice to the appellant, in which it was recorded that the Police authorities have forwarded his original passport to him.
The appellant made an application to the Court of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate–cum– Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada for issuing a direction to the 3 respondent to return the passport.
The appellant was aggrieved by the condition of producing the passports of his son (who is a citizen of USA) and his wife – 4 respondent.
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the 3 respondent – Regional Passport Office submitted that a duplicate passport cannot be issued under the provisions of the PP Act and Rules framed thereunder.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-benefit-of-doubt-in-criminal-convictions/
Moreover, it was held that under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., the Police have the power to seize the passport but there is no power to impound the same.
It is an accepted position that the Police took custody of the appellant’s passport in the exercise of powers under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the interest of both the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the Order under Revision and direct the release of Passport of the petitioner to facilitate his travel to abroad subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of F.D.R., in favour of the 4 respondent/ de facto complainant along with the Original Passports of the 4th respondent/ de facto complainant and her son before the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Therefore, the High Court ought to have directed the 3 respondent to return the passport. The condition of returning the passport of the 4 respondent could not have been imposed at all as the act of the Passport Officer of retaining the appellant’s passport was completely illegal.
It will be open for the 4 respondent to apply to the concerned Regional Passport Office in prescribed format for the reissue of her passport or for grant of a fresh passport.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/vicarious-liability-under-section-34-of-ipc/
There will be no order as to costs.
Case Title: CHENNUPATI KRANTHI KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2023 INSC 645)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001601-001602 / 2023
