Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction particularly to respondents 4 and 5 to return the passport bearing Registration No.J4709789 and respondents 1 to 3 to take disciplinary action against respondents 4 and 5. 2. When the matter came up on 27.06.2012, this Court ordered notice of admission and directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. 3. Accordingly it is brought to the notice of this Court that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in First Information Report No.04 of 2012, dated 09.05.2012, under Section 420 IPC. This was on the basis of the complaint given by one R.Govindasamy of Thimmapuram Post, Krishnagiri Taluk. Pursuant to the said complaint, on investigation, the passport of the petitioner was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the said R.Govindasamy. Therefore, a mahazar was prepared containing the list of properties and the matter was also sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, on 15.05.2012. At present, the petitioner's passport is in the custody of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, having been deposited on 15.05.2012. 4. It is stated in the General Diary that the passport of the petitioner as well as an agreement executed by one E.Hemalatha, D/o.Elango, were seized by the Police as case property No.72 of 2012. 5. The only question that has to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner's prayer for return of the passport can be ordered. 6. In the present case, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit, but assuming that it was the case of the seizure in terms of Section 102 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has held that 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. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10 (3) of the Passports Act, 1967. Though the respondents / Police may have power to seize the passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C., it is permissible within the authority given under said Section and they 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 and the law on this aspect is clearly set up by the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 674. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 to 18 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "11. The Act being a specific Act whereas Section 104 of Cr.P.C. is a general provision for impounding any document or thing, it shall prevail over that Section in the Cr.P.C. 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 10A of the Act which provides for an order to 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 10A of the Act to impound the passport by the respondent exercising the powers vested under the Act. 13. .... 14. 13. .... 14. In our opinion, while the police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C, 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. 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 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 held in custody in accordance with law". Thus, the word impounding really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized. 16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C.), 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 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 party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [ Air 1967 SC 1269 ]. 17. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa Vs. 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 10A 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 Cr.P.C. 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 a passport is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. 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 Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant . Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing." 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court gave a direction to the Police authorities to handover the passport to the aggrieved individual. 8. Similarly, in the present case, since the passport has been sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, as a case property, the petitioner is directed to file an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, and also produce a copy of this order. In the light of the law laid down, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, shall hand over the passport to the petitioner. In the light of the law laid down, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, shall hand over the passport to the petitioner. Ultimately, whether the passport should be impounded or cancelled will be subject to the order to be passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, who himself has to inform the same to the Passport authorities depending upon the out come of the case. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to order second portion of the petitioner's prayer, namely, to direct the authorities to take disciplinary action against respondents 4 and 5 as it is in the stage of investigation. The question of any such direction, at this stage, will not arise. With reference to the criminal case lodged against the petitioner, it is for him to defend himself in the manner known to law and nothing is said about the nature of the offence in order to prove the evidence available against the petitioner. 9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.