SURESH NANDA versus C.B.I

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1212 · Decided: 24-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1S.C.R.1212 
SURESH NANDA 
v. 
C.B.I 
(Crl. A. No. 179 of 2008) 
JANUARY 24, 2008 
(P.P. NAOLEKAR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Passport Act, 1967: 
A 
B 
s.10(3)(e) - Impounding of passport of - NRI - FIR 
against - During search operation, passport seized - Retained C 
by CBI under orders of Court - HELD: Retention of passport 
by CBI is clearly illegal as it has not been done in conformity 
with provisions of law and there is no order of the passport 
authorities uls 10(3)(e) or by Central Government uls 10-A to 
impound passport -
Passport could not have been D 
impounded except by passport authority in accordance with 
law- Passport Act being a specific one ands. 104 Cr PC. being 
a general provision, by necessary implication power of court 
to impound any document or thing produced before it would 
exclude passport - Expressions 'seizure' and 'impounding' -
E 
Connotation of- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.102 
and 104 - Interpretation of Statutes. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.102 - Seizure of document by police - HELD: Police F 
may have power to seize a passport, it does not have power to 
retain or impound the same because that can only be done 
by passport authority uls 10(3) of the Passport Act - If police 
seizes a passport u/s 102 of Code, it must send the same 
along with a letter to passport authority stating as to why seized G 
passport deserves to be impounded uls 10 of Passport Act -
It is then for passport authority to decide whether to impound 
the passport or not - Passport to be returned to the owner -
Passport Act, 1967 - SS. 10(3)(E) AND 10-A. 
1212 
H 
1213 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Words and Phrases: 
Expressions 'seizure' and 'impounding' - Connotation of 
in the context of Passport Act, 1967 and Cr. PC. 
Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. 
B Passport Officer (1967) 3 SCR 525; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union 
of India and another (1978) 1 sec 248; Dam Valaji Shah & 
another Vs. L.l.C. of India & others AIR 1966 SC 135; Gobind 
.. 
Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others 1999(7) SCC 76; 
and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 
c 1999 SC 3125; and State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 
SC 1269 - referred to. 
Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition); 
and Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh 
(9th Edition) - referred to. 
D 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 179 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.2.2007 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.R.P. No. 49/2007. 
E 
Harish N. Salve, Sidharth Luthra, Mukul Rohtagi, Sandeep 
Kapur, Ruchin Midha, R.N. Karanjawala and Manik Karanjawala 
for the Appellant. 
A Sharan, A.S.G., A. Mariarputham and B. Krishna Prasad 
F for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
G 
2. The appellant claims to be a non-resident Indian settled 
in United Kingdom for the last 23 years. The passport of the 
appellant as well as other documents were seized by the 
respondent from 4, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi in a search 
H conducted on 10.10.2006 when the appellant was on a visit to 
SURESH NANDA v. C.8.1. 
1214 
India. The said search and seizure was pursuant to an F.1.R. A 
dated 9.10.2006 registered on the basis of a sting operation 
carried out by a news portal in the year 2001. The passport 
seized during the search was retained by the C.B.I. officials. An 
application was moved by the appellant before the Special 
Judge, C.B.I., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi praying for B 
release of his passport so that he can travel abroad to London 
and Dubai for a period of 15 days. The learned Special Judge, 
.. 
by order dated 15.1.2007, directed the release of the passport 
to the appellant by imposing upon him certain conditions. 
Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Special 
Judge, C.8.1., the respondent preferred a Criminal Revision c 
before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 5.2.2007, 
reversed the order of the learned Special Judge and refused to 
release the passport to the appellant. Aggrieved against the 
order of the High Court, present appeal, by special leave, has D 
been preferred by the appellant. 
•• 
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant 
submitted that the power and jurisdiction to impound the 
passport of any individual has to be exercised under the 
Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). He E 
specifically
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.