TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 as forwarded by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to surrender his Passport. If the case referred therein was disposed of, the outcome of the case was directed to be intimated with certified copy of the court order for further process. 3.On receipt of the letter, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 21.01.2012 through his counsel alleging that impounding of Passport was against the provisions of law including the Passport Act. It was the denial of right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and such a right cannot be deprived except by the procedure established by law. It was stated by the petitioner that he had been invited by the World Forum Federation to be held at St. Catherine's College, Oxford, England from 28.08.2012 to 02.09.2012. He had already arranged the Air tickets for his travel starting from Chennai on 22.08.2012 and to return to Chennai on 04.09.2012 by traveling in Emirates Airline. The tour programme of the petitioner was also arranged by the Organizer. A copy of the same has been enclosed in the typed set. 4.It was stated by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.Natarajan petitioner of this case may flee the country and may not be able available for judicial process. Hence the CBI requested this office to impound the Passport No.Z1758388 dated 16.12.2008 valid till 15.12.2018 issued to the petitioner Sri M.Natarajan, under Section 10(3)(d) of Indian Passport Act, 1967. 7.I submit that this office impounded the Passport No.Z1758388 dated 16.12.2008 valid till 15.12.2018 issued to the petitioner Shri M.Natarajan under Section 10(3)(d) of Indian Passport Act, 1967. I further submit that also this office of 1st respondent advised the petitioner that in case, the above case is disposed of, outcome of the case may be intimated with certified copy of the court order for further process at this office end. 6.In support of the said stand, they have also enclosed a copy of the letter sent by the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai, dated 26.12.2011 and the same reads as follows : Sub : CBI case no.RC.24/A/1998/CBI/ACB/Chn impounding of Passport No.Z1758388 of M.Natarajan Reg. The case in RC 24/A/98, Chennai was registered by CBI, ACB, Chennai on 22.04.98 and after investigation, a final report was filed before Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : 7........Merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail, the conviction does not cease to be operative. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the appellate court to order that pending the appeal the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. Section 389(1), it may be noted, speaks of suspending the execution of the sentence or order, it does not expressly speak of suspension of conviction. Even so, it may be possible to say that in certain situations, the appellate court may also have the power to suspend the conviction an aspect dealt with recently in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang1. .... In this case, there was no stay of conviction, but only the sentence had been suspended. Therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents to invoke the power under Section 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act. 10.The second contention was that the term moral turpitude has not been specifically defined. Therefore, the authority cannot construe the conviction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a passport without affording reasonable opportunity to the holder of the passport to be heard in defence. To impound the passport of a person, said the petitioner, is a serious matter, since it prevents him from exercising his constitutional right to go abroad and such a drastic consequence cannot in fairness be visited without observing the principle of audi alteram partem. Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Byles, J., in Cooper v. Wandswort Board of Works12: A long course of decisions, beginning with Dr Bentley case and ending with some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the power of impounding a passport even on the orthodox view which prevailed prior to A.K. Kraipak case22. The same result must follow in view of the decision in A.K. Kraipakcase22 even if the power to impound a passport were regarded as administrative in character, because it seriously interferes with the constitutional right of the holder of the passport to go abroad and entails adverse civil consequences. 15.But the question then immediately arises whether the Central Government has complied with this procedure in impounding the passport of the petitioner. Now, it is obvious and indeed this could not be controverted, that the Central Government not only did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after making the impugned order impounding her passport but even declined to furnish to the petitioner the reasons for impounding her passport despite request made by her. We have already pointed out that the Central Government was wholly unjustified in withholding the reasons for impounding the passport from the petitioner and this was not only in breach of the statutory provision, but it also amounted to denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent. It is open to the respondent to issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner herein giving him an opportunity of explanation and then decide as to whether his passport could be returned by including the visa. It is also open to the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner if there is any need for impounding the passport of the petitioner. A detailed enquiry is required to be made by the respondent and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and then only decide the matter in accordance with law. 15.The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is correct insofar that he was not heard. But at the same time, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 10(3)(d) is not attracted to the case on hand. But neither immediately after his conviction nor after he got the sentence suspended, his Passport was not impounded. He was also allowed to travel abroad during that period. The impugned order was based upon the letter of the CBI but without hearing the petitioner and hence it is clearly invalid. To that extent the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16.However, that will not end the matter. Since the petitioner had complained that he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
