NRISINGHA MURARI CHAKRABORTY & ORS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 12-04-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
521 
NRJSINGHA MURARI CHAKRABORTY & ORS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
April 12, 1977 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N, SHINGHAL. JJ.J 
indiun Penal Code 1860-Sec. 415·420-whether Passport is a Property-
Meaning of property. 
The appellants \Vere charged under section 420 read with section 120B of 
the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was a conspiracy between them 
as a result of which hundreds of applications were filed for the issue of pass· 
ports. The applications were made by suppressing the real facts about the 
nationality and addresses of the applicants and by making false representations 
in several other respects. The prosecution alleged that hundreds of passports 
were issued and delivered to persons who were not entitled to have them under 
the law. 
Special Leave was granted limited to the question whether the pass· 
ports were property within the meaning of section 420 of the 
Indian Pchal 
Code. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
B 
c 
HELD : I. A passport is a document which by its nature and purpose i3 
a political document for the benefit of its bolder. It recognises him as a citizen 
of the country granting it and is in the nature of a request to the other country 
D 
tor hia free passage there. 
[522-C] 
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Raniuratlmam (1967) 3 SCR 525 refercd to; 
Abhayanand Mishra v. The State of Bihar (1962) 2 SCR 241 followed; 
Queen Empress v. 
Appasan1i (1889) I.L.R. 12 Mad. 151 and Queen Enr-
pres. v. Sashi Bhuslian (1893) I.L.R. 15 All. 210 approved; 
Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh v. State of Maharashtra and Other (1969) 1 
E 
SCk 13 followed: 
Jn ~ Packiannthan A.I.R. 1920 1iad. 131 ( 1) and Local Governnze11t v. 
Ganga Ram A.l.R. 1922 Nagpur 229 approved. 
2. The word 'property' is defined as the right to· the use or enjoyment or 
the beneficial right of disposal of anything that can be the subject of ownership, 
specially ownership of tangible things. Passport is a tangible thing and is capable 
of ownership. It is the property of the State so long as it is with the passport 
issuing authority and has not been issued to the person concerned, and after issue 
F 
it becomes the property of the person to \vhom it bas been granted. Passport can 
be the subject of ownership or exclusive possession and is therefore property 
within the meaning of sections 415 and 420 1.P.C. [523 A-C, 524 GJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 277 
of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
23rd June, 1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr!. A. No. 45 of 1964. 
G 
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das for the Appellanis. 
D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee for Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL, J.-Thi> appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated June 23, 1971, upholding 
H 
the conviction of the appellants for offences under sections 420 znd 
· 420/120B of the Penal Code but re~uci~g their sen.tences. 
The charge 
related to 
cheating the passport 1ssumg authority of the Hooghly 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 3 S.C.R. 
district by disho!1estly ind~cing him to _iss)le passports on the basis of 
false .representations. 
This Court has limited the special leave to the 
que~t10n whether the passports were "property" within the meaning of 
sect10n 420 of the Penal Code ? 
· 
. 
Speaking broadly, the allegation against the appellants was that 
t~ere was a conspiracy b~tween them as a result of which 1480 applica-
tions were file~ for the issue of passports from July, 1956 to April, 
1957, by Muslims and Chinese nationals. 
These applications were 
alleged to have been made by suppressing the real facts about the 
nationality and addresses of the applicants, and by making false re-
presentations in several other respects. 
The prosecution alleged titat 
hundreds of passports were thus issued and delivered to persons who 
were not entitled to them under the law. 
Some of the appellants were 
alleged to be directly concerned with those applications, and it was 
further alleged that the orders of the Passport Authority were obtained 
by dishonest inducement and false representation. 
A passport is a document which, by its nature and purpose, is a 
political document for the benefit of its holder. 
It recognises 
him 
as a citizen of the country granting it and is in the nature of a request 
to the other country for his free passage there. 
Its im

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.