Telangana High Court
Ankaraju Bharat Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 August, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.416 OF 2022
ORDER:-
1. Challenge in this Revision case is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in Crl.M.P.No.1413 of 2022 in Crime No.324 of 2021, dated 25.05.2022.
2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The petitioner who is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.324 of 2021 of Madhapur Police Station, moved an application under Section 457 read with Section 451 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the passport. The Court dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he intends to leave India to pursue his occupation and depriving him to do so is in one way depriving him to enjoy his fundamental rights guaranteed under 2 Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022 the constitution and thus the Court ought to have returned his passport.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the Court is not expected to impound the passport and power is not granted to the Court to impound the passport. Learned counsel in this regard relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I.1 In the said decision, the Court at Para 15 of the order, held as follows:-
"15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a "passport" is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation.
(9th Edition pg.133) this principle is expressed in the maxim "Generalia special bus non derogant". Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court 1 AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1414 3 Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022 under Section 104, Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing."
6. However, in the case on hand, the passport is not impounded as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the decision that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding of a document. The Court, at Para 12 of the order held as follows:-
"12. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, when such retention amounts to impounding of the property/document. In the Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word "impound"
has been defined to mean "to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law". Thus, the word "impounding" really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized."
4
Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022
7. The submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence affecting the peace and tranquility of the society and the petitioner is prima facie found to have committed the offence falling within the purview of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and therefore, the Court has rightly dismissed the application which is filed for return of passport.
8. The crux of the case as could be perceived through the contents of the material that is available on record is that on receipt of information that drugs are being sold at Plot No.603, South Block, Hallmark Express Towers, White Field, Kondapur, Police conducted raid and found a prohibited drug named 'Mephedrone' and also weighing machines two in number. The petitioner herein is found in possession of the said prohibited drug. It is also mentioned that passports which are ten in number and smart phones which are three in number were also found and they were seized.
9. The case is admittedly under investigation. The observation of the learned Judge who passed the impugned order is as under:-
5
Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022 "... ... ... Considering the nature of offence and its seriousness, it is doubtful that the petitioner if leave the country would return back to face trial. If at all, the petitioner intended to join in any job he is at liberty to take up the same without leaving the country. I am not convinced that the seized passport is to be returned to the petitioner at this stage, where his presence is required to face charges and the trial of the offence registered against him. Therefore, petition is to be dismissed."
10. This Court is in full agreement with the observation of the learned Judge. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and is directed against the society. Further, why the passports which are ten in number were found in possession of the petitioner has to be investigated.
11. Having regard to the grave allegations thus directed against him, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to leave the country.
12. Thus, this Court does not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Though it is pointed out that the petitioner has right to travel abroad and it is a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution, the said fundamental right is not an absolute right. The interests of the society and 6 Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022 the safety of the country is of paramount importance. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the revision case lacks merits.
13. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1413 of 2022 in Crime No.324 of 2021, dated 25.05.2022.
14. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Dt.26.08.2022 ysk 7 Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.416 OF 2022 Dt.26.08.2022 ysk 8 Dr.CSL,J Crl.R.C.No.416_2022