Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3 (AP)

Shaik Abdul Jabbar v. State of A. P.

2019-01-04

T.RAJANI

body2019
ORDER : T. Rajani, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed seeking quash of the order dated 14-12-2018 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 124 of 2018 in C.C. No. 1090 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile Court), Kurnool. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. With the consent of the counsel, the case is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the Court below directed the Regional Passport Authority to revoke the passport of the petitioner. 4. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that such order cannot be passed by the Magistrate, relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 3 SCC 674 wherein it was held that even the Court cannot impound the passport and observed as follows: “18. In our opinion, even the court cannot impound a passport. Through, 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 of a “passport” is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passport Act is a special law while 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 Edn., p. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus no 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 of thing.” 5. In view of the above, the order of the Court below cannot be sustained and hence, is hereby set aside. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is not co-operating with the trial, as such the order has to be confirmed. 7. In the interest of justice a direction can be given to the petitioner to be present before the Court below during the time of trial. The criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.