The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana (Through SHO Women PS, Charminar, South Zone, Hyderabad) ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directing court below to release the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No. R0895673 deposited before XV Additional Chief Metropolitan [Iagistrate, Hyderabad in CC No.10577 of 2020 by suspending order dt.19/01/2024 passed in Crl. Ir4PNo.299112023. pending disposal of the Crl.Rc. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms ANITHA RAGHAVULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.674 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petrtioner-accused No 1 seeking to set aside tire, impugned order dated 19 01 2024 passed rn CRL tr/ P No lt!r91 of 2023 in C C.No 10577 of 2020 by the learned Xll Adclrlional Chief lVletropolitan lt/lagistrate. FAC XV Additr:ral Chief [/letropolitan l\rlagistrate, Hyderabad (hereinafte' referred to as 'the learned trial Court'), whereby the app rcation filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Prtcedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking permanent release :' Passporl bearing No R0895673 of the petitioner-accuseri No 'l , was dismissed 02 Heard Sri Anitha Raghavula, learnec counsel foi- the petitioner-accused and Sri [Vl.Ramachanlra Reddy learned Additional Public Prosecutor for ilre State- respondent Perused the record 03 Learned counsel for the petitioner subr-ritted that, without any direction from the learned trial Couri the police seized the passport of the petitioner during thr: course of investigation and depcsited the same before the earned trial 2 Court. The said act of the police is against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. CBl' wherein it was held at paragraph Nos. 12 and 15 that: "12 lt may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a clocument and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a pafticular moment when a person or authority takes into hrs possess ion some property which was earlier not in h/s possession. Thus, seizure is done at a pafticular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a propefty or document the said propefty or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the properly/or document. ln 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 hetd in custody in accordance with law. Thus, the word impouncling realty means retention of possessrbn of a good or a document which has been seizecl.

15. ln our opinion, even the Couft cannot impound a passpori Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.p.C. slafes fhaf the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing ' 1:ooay : scc 6r+ ,' ? produced before it, in our opinion, lhls provision will only enable the Cour, to intpound any document or thing other than a passporl This is because impoundinl a passporl is provided for in Section 10(3) o"he Passpods Act. The Passports Act is a spectal law whilr> the Cr.P C is a general law. ll is well settled that the special law prevails tter the general law vide G P Slngh's Principles of Statutory lnterpretation (9th Edition pg 133) This principle is expressed in the ma>'rm Generalia specialibus non derogant Hel:e, impoundrng of a passport cannot be done by the Ccurt under Section 104 Cr P.C thou'1n it can impound any other document or tlting." 04 lt is further submitted that the matter is; now at the stage of consideration under Section 239 lr P.C. on 11 11 2025 The learned counsel further subm tted that the petitioner-accused No 1 is willing to abide by zrry condition that may be imposed by this Court and, therefore. sor-rght a direction for release of his passport 05 ln response to the aforesaid subnrission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly admitted that the passport of the petitioner-a,:r;used No.'1 was seized w'ithout there being any directior from the 4 learned [\lagistrate. He further submitted that, subject to the availability of the petitioner-accused No.1 for examination under Section 239 Cr.p.C , he has no objection for release of the passport and left it to the discretion of this Court to pass appropriate orders. 06 ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and havrng regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either slde, and keeprng in view the settled principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the considered oprnion that the finding recorded by the learned lVaglstrate that mere depositing of the passport before the Court by the investrgating agency does not amount to impounding, is perverse and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision ln that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.

07. Taking into consideratron the fact that the matter is Iisted on 11.11.2025 for examrnation of the petitioner_ accused No.1 under Section 239 Cr.p.C, the learned trial Cou( is directed to return the passport of the petitioner forthwith, after completion of the said examination, subject to ,,/ 5 the condition that the petitioner shall file arr undertaking before the learned IVlagistrate that he shall lte available during the (lourse of trial and shall duly coopt>rate with the learned trial C r r"r rt 08 Accordingly, with the above Cirections, this Criminal Revision Case rs disposed of As a sequel, miscellaneous appltcat cns, if any pending, shall stand closed Scl/- P, GOWRI SHANKAR ')l:PUTY REGISTRAR-- ---7' , t-/ \_--__--- //TRUE COPY// I L $rcrtoru oFFlcER To, 1 The XV Additional Chief lvletropolitan t\/agistrate , Hyderabad 2. The Stalion House Officer, Women Police Station Soutlr 'Zone, Hyderabad' 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S'ate of Telangana at Hyderabad [O UT]

4. One CC to Ms ANITHA RAGHAVULU' Advocate IOPUt)] 5. Two CD Copies NVI] DL Y*' HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 I ORDER CRLRC.No.674 of 2025 qs' ) \,, 06 il['J nhf t D5 .S TC,\ \1 .a\l , DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE -qi> caY' 4t Yt-..-,s -:{''C\} -.1L\