Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)
Unknown vs Senior Intelligence Officer on 16 September, 2022 cites

Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967

8. As long as a criminal court has the power to withhold the passport and the passport is now in the custody of the trial Court and the need for withholding has arisen only because of the act of the petitioner in getting himself involved in alleged smuggling, the difficulties of his own making cannot enure in his favour, though under Article 21 of the constitution, no person can be deprived of his right to travel, except according to the procedure established by law, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Vs Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi, (AIR 1967 SC 1836) and Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India, (1978-2-S.C.R.621) had not touched or affected the powers of a Criminal Court to withhold or impound the passport of a person accused of an offence if he is likely to leave the shores of the country and make good his escape from the clutches of law. On th facts of his case, the petitioner has still a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/15 Crl.R.C.Nos.1136 & 1137 of 2022 condition to obey viz., to report before the respondent and further his passport has been withheld by the Criminal Court in view of is involvement in an offence under the Customs Act. The complaint against the petitioner is ready to be instituted and the trial could be expedited. In view of the reasoning aforementioned, there is no grouind made out for either the return of the passport or granting permission to the petitioners to go to Sri Lanka, on return of the passport. This petition is dismissed.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 188 - K S Rao - Full Document

Thanapal vs Assistant Collector Of C.E. on 20 March, 1986

5. Let me now consider the rival contentions of the learned counsel on either side. David Annoussamy, J., in Thanapal's case, (1986 LW (Cri) 114) while holding that the seizure of passport by the Customs Officer was not covered by Section 100 of the customs Act and that the seizure was illegal, observed that it was open to the respondent (Customs Department) to move the competent Court to modify the conditions of bail to the extent desired, so that if the Court thought fit to secure the accused person as and when required, condition could be stipulated that the petitioner shall not leave the country and , to ensure fulfilment of the condition, order the surrendering of the passport to the Court. This salutary observation made by this Court must be observed by the Customs Department, so that it could be a complete answer for petitions filed for return of passport and for permission sought to go out of the country, pending disposal of a prosecution.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next