JOSE PETER Vs. C K VIJAYKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for consideration is whether the Court can pass an order to impound the passport of a judgment debtor in an execution proceedings on the apprehension raised by the decree holder that he is likely to leave the country, and thus, the decree holder would be deprived of realising the fruits of the decree.

(2.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 253/2008 in O.S. No. 152/2005 on the file of the Vadakara Munsiff Court Suit was one for money which was decreed ex parte. The execution petition filed before the Munsiff Court, Vadakara was transferred to Munsiff court, Mancheri. The decree holder moved an application before that court under Section 151 of the CPC for an order to the Passport officer, Malappuram to impound the passport of the judgment debtor alleging that the judgment debtor who was in a gulf country has just now come back to his house, but, avoiding the notice and trying to leave the country. It is the further case of the decree holder that a long pending warrant issued by a Magistrate Court against the judgment debtor is pending for execution and that an attempt made by the decree holder to impound the passport of the judgment debtor through the Passport officer had been turned down directing him to get an order from the appropriate court for doing so. Ext.Pl is the copy of that petition, "the learned Munsiff, after hearing the counsel for the decree holder, pasted Ext.P2 order directing the Passport officer, Malappuram to impound the passport of the judgment debtor. The decree holder was also directed to issue notice to the judgment debtor emergency and meet the expenses for service of the above order through special messenger. Legality, propriety and correctness of that order is impeached by the judgment debtor invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I heard the counsel on both sides. The impugned order evidently was passed by the learned Munsiff without referring to Passport Act, whereunder, there is no provision enabling any court to pass an order directing the Passport officer to impound the passport of a party in a proceeding. Section 10 of the Passport Act spells out under what circumstances the passport authority may vary, impound or revoke the passport and travel documents, subject to the provision of Sub-sections (1) of Section 6 or any notification under Section 19 of the above Act Sub-section (3) of Section 10 specifies under Clauses (a) to (h) in what cases the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke the passport or travel document But none of the provisions covered by Clauses (a) to (h) under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 confers any authority to the court to direct or order the passport authority to impound or revoke the passport or travel document of a party to a proceedings. The court is empowered under Sub-section (7) of Section 10, on convicting the holder of the passport or travel document of any offence under the Act or the rules made thereunder to revoke the passport or travel document of such convict. Sub-section (8) of Section 10 authorises the appellate court or the High Court to pass an order of revocation as provided under Sub-section (7) while exercising its powers of appeal or revision as the case may be. But it has to be taken note that the conviction of the offender holding a passport or travel document must be in relation to any offence under the Passport Act or the Rules made thereunder. The passport authority is empowered to impound or revoke the passport of a person if the holder of the passport had been convicted by a court in any offence involving moral turpitude, provided, the sentence imposed is imprisonment for not less than two years. The conferment of such a power on the passport authority is covered by Sub-section 3 (d) of Section 10 of the Passport Act Similarly, such impounding or revocation can also be made by the passport authority where it is brought to his notice, and he is satisfied, that a warrant or summons for appearance or warrant for the arrest of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by the court under any law which is in force or that an order has been passed by the court prohibiting the departure of the passport holder from India. He is empowered to do so under Sub-section (3)(h) of Section 10 of the Act. So, what is seen from the provisions of the Passport Act is that except in a case where a holder of the passport or travel document is convicted of an offence under the Passport Act or Rules made thereunder, the court convicting him, and the appellate court or the High court while exercising its powers on revocation in respect of such a proceeding, a court cannot order for revocation of the passport or travel document. An order by the court to impound the passport of a holder on whatever grounds that be is not provided by the Passport Act. In Surest Nanda v. C.B.I., 2008 AIR(SC) 1414 the powers of the police to seize passport under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is recognised, but, it has been pointed out that in exercise of such authority the police does not have a power to impound the passport Hie apex court has further made it clear that even the court cannot impound the passport In the above decision, it has been held thus: