- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16841 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MS. SARIKA MAHENDRA RAJPUT AGED 23 YEARS D/O MAHENDRA RAJPUT R/A NO.122, NARI ROAD NEAR MANAS MANDIR GURU TEG BAHADUR NAGAR UPPALWADI, NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA - 44002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJULA MUNAVALLI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH EAST CEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SATHEESHA THOTA S/O CH.KONDALA RAO AGE: 44, GENDER: MALE B311, GREEN ASPIRE, 5TH CROSS SAMPIGEHALLI, BENGALRU KARNATAKA - 560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 IN CRIME NO.260/2024 U/S 66(d) OF IT ACT AND SECTION 419, 420 OF IPC 1860 ON THE FILE OF THE 45TH ADDL.CJM AT BANGALORE APPLICATION U/S 497 AND 503 OF BNSS 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 in Crime No.260/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and release the passport from the hands of respondent No.1. 2. Heard Smt. Manjula Munavalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.260/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC inter alia. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The Investigating Officer appears to have seized the passport of the petitioner on the registration of the crime in Crime No.260/2024. The petitioner then files an application under Section 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking release of the passport from the hands of the Investigating Officer. The concerned Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. This Court, in the case of NITIN SHAMBHUKUMAR KASLIWAL v. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-11, while considering whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Civil Court or Criminal Court, as the case may be, has the power to impound passports, has held as follows: "…. …. …. 11. The Passport Act is a special enactment and is trite that it being a special enactment which would prevail over any power of even the civil court or criminal Court to retain or impound a passport. 1 WRIT PETITION NO. 26333 OF 2023 (GM-DRT), disposed on 06.12.2023 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 The issue in the case at hand is, such an act being done by the Tribunal which undoubtedly has only the power of following the procedure of a civil Court in securing ends of justice. The civil Court or the criminal Court itself do not have the power to impound the passport. Section 102 or 104 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that those Courts can impound the passport also. The Court – either the criminal Court or the civil Court, issuing directions to deposit of a passport before it, till conclusion of trial are those orders which are without authority of law. The Tribunal – Debts Recovery Tribunal can hardly have such power. The very act of the Tribunal in directing surrender of the passport of a citizen or its detention before it, would amount to impounding of passport. Such power is unavailable to the Tribunal. Who can impound a passport fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of SURESH NANDA v. CBI2 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “8. Sub-section (5) of Section 165 CrPC provides that the copies of record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence whereas Section 104 CrPC authorises the court to impound any document or thing produced before it under the Code. Section 165 CrPC does not speak about the passport which has been searched and seized as in the present case. It does not speak about the documents found in search, but copies of the records prepared under sub-section (1) and sub- section (3). 9. “Impound” means to keep in custody of the law. There must be some distinct action which will show that documents or things have been impounded. 2 (2008) 3 SCC 674 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 According to Oxford Dictionary “impound” means to take legal or formal possession. In the present case, the passport of the appellant is in possession of CBI right from the date it has been seized by CBI. When we read Section 104 CrPC and Section 10 of the Act together, under CrPC, the court is empowered to impound any document or thing produced before it whereas the Act speaks specifically of impounding of the passport. 10. Thus, the Act is a special Act relating to a matter of passport, whereas Section 104 CrPC authorises the court to impound document or thing produced before it. Where there is a special Act dealing with specific subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the specific Act. As the Passports Act is a special Act, the rule that “general provision should yield to the specific provision” is to be applied. See DamjiValji Shah v. LIC of India [AIR 1966 SC 135], Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(1999) 7 SCC 76] and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(1999) 9 SCC 620: AIR 1999 SC 3125]. 11. The Act being a specific Act whereas Section 104 CrPC is a general provision for impounding any document or thing, it shall prevail over that section in CrPC as regards the passport. Thus, by necessary implication, the power of court to impound any document or thing produced before it would exclude passport. 12. In the present case, no steps have been taken under Section 10 of the Act which provides for variation, impounding and revocation of the passports and travel documents. Section 10-A of the Act which provides for an order to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 suspend with immediate effect any passport or travel document; such other appropriate order which may have the effect of rendering any passport or travel document invalid, for a period not exceeding four weeks, if the Central Government or any designated officer on its satisfaction holds that it is necessary in public interest to do without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Section 10 by approaching the Central Government or any designated officer. Therefore, it appears that the passport of the appellant cannot be impounded except by the Passport Authority in accordance with law. The retention of the passport by the respondent (CBI) has not been done in conformity with the provisions of law as there is no order of the Passport Authorities under Section 10(3)(e) or by the Central Government or any designated officer under Section 10-A of the Act to impound the passport by the respondent exercising the powers vested under the Act. 13. The learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that the police has power to seize a passport in view of Section 102(1) CrPC which states: “102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.—(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.” 14. In our opinion, while the police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) CrPC, it does not have the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 15. 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, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property or document. In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edn.), the word “impound” has been defined to mean, “to take possession of a document or the like for being held in custody in accordance with law”. Thus, the word “impounding” really means retention of possession of goods or a document which has been seized. 16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 CrPC if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 CrPC, it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 CrPC), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the Passport Authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter for the Passport Authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the Passport Authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 party (vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269] ). 17. In the present case, neither the Passport Authority passed any order of impounding nor was any opportunity of hearing given to the appellant by the Passport Authority for impounding the document. It was only the CBI authority which has retained possession of the passport (which in substance amounts to impounding it) from October 2006. In our opinion, this was clearly illegal. Under Section 10-A of the Act retention by the Central Government can only be for four weeks. Thereafter it can only be retained by an order of the Passport Authority under Section 10(3). 18. In our opinion, even the court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 CrPC 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 of a “passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while CrPC 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 Edn., p. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim generaliaspecialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the court under Section 104 CrPC though it can impound any other document or thing. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the respondent to hand over the passport to the appellant within a week from today. However, it shall be open to the respondent to approach the Passport Authorities under Section 10 or the authorities under Section 10-A of the Act for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 impounding the passport of the appellant in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court dealt with the very issue as to who would be the Authority to impound the passport. The Apex Court holds that neither the Police nor the criminal Court invoking powers under Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. can seize or impound a passport. Impounding of a passport is by the Authority vested under the Act as depicted therein. Retaining of the passport by the Tribunal can hardly be justified under the Act under which it functions much less under the provisions of the Act that are invoked by the Banks. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled for issuance of a writ of mandamus for release of the passport by reserving liberty to the 2nd respondent to act in accordance with the mandate of Section 10 of the Passports Act in the event need arises.” (Emphasis supplied) Whatever be the offence, the Investigating Officer on the face of it does not have any jurisdiction to withhold or seize the passport of the petitioner. Even the concerned Court does not have jurisdiction to seize the passport of a citizen, it is only the passport authorities under the Passports Act, 1967. Therefore, on this short ground that the Investigating Officer did not have jurisdiction to seize the passport and keep it with him and the concerned Court has rendered an illegal order by rejecting the application that the petitioner may be at flight risk that would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27133 CRL.P No. 16841 of 2025 not mean that the petitioner's passport can be withheld. However, reserving liberty to the passport authorities or the prosecution to invoke the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, the direction must ensue to the Investigating Officer to release the passport. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is disposed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.10.2025 in Crime No.260/2024, passed by the 45th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bangalore, stands quashed. (iii) The passport that is in the custody of the Investigating Officer shall be forthwith handed over to the petitioner. However, the liberty is reserved to the prosecution to invoke the provisions of the Passports Act, 1961, if need arises. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7