Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.02/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Nikshepako ke Hito ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2005) (Annexure A/1), whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 451 of CrPC. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the present revisioner is accused in the Criminal Case No.02/2019 which is pending before the learned trial Court and facing trial for the offences under Section 420 of I.P.C. and various Sections of Special Act i.e. Chhattisgarh Nikshepako ke Hito ka Sanrankshan Adhiniyam, 2005. The applicant has enlarged on bail, but his passport bearing No.K 5488506 issued by the Republic of India has been seized by the police. Therefore, the applicant has filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking the interim custody of the passport, but the same has been rejected by the impugned order which is already filed as Annexure A/1. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and law, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that the power and jurisdiction to impound the passport of any individual has to be exercised under the Passport Act, 1967. He specifically referred to sub-section (3)(e) of Section 10 of the Act which reads as under: (3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document - (e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India: He further contended the trial Court has not appreciated that the applicant has enlarged on bail and he has not misused the same. Moreover, the applicant has a business for which he has to go abroad for which he needed the passport. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A/1) releasing the passport from the police custody, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A/1) releasing the passport from the police custody, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section 451 of CrPC filed by applicant on the ground that according to the material on record, Sure Mart and Sure Wealth’s Directors- Rajesh Mishra and Deendayal Soni and Associate- Prafull Chaudhary were found to have defrauded the applicant Surendra Preetwani and 6776 other customers of about Rs.90 crore by cheating and deceiving them by luring them with the promise of giving franchise to customers and getting 0 to 02% dividend on investing in Sure Mart. The matter was investigated. A case was registered against the accused on the Investors' complaint. Along with this, there is a charge of cheating of about Rs.90 crores. There are facts on record that Accused-Rajesh Mishra invested some amount of the money in his bank account, some money in the firm's account, some money in his family's account and spent some money on foreign travel. In this way, it is shown that accused Rajesh Mishra has committed the crime of financial irregularity of crores of rupees. The accused is trying to get his passport on surrender to do business abroad, and if this is given, the possibility of the accused absconding cannot be ruled out and it does not seem appropriate to provide passport on surrender to the applicant/accused Rajesh Mishra. 7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under Sections 420/34, 409, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 10 of the Protection of Depositors Interests Act, 2005 and Section 3/4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and seized the passport of the applicant. 7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under Sections 420/34, 409, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 10 of the Protection of Depositors Interests Act, 2005 and Section 3/4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and seized the passport of the applicant. The applicant has filed the application before the trial Court under Section 451 of CrPC for interim custody of the passport, but the same has been rejected by the trial Court by impugned order Annexure A/1. 8. Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967 provides as under : “(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,- (a) if the passport authority is satisfied that the holder of the passport or travel document is in wrongful possession thereof; (b) If the passport or travel document was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf:Provided that if the holder of such passport obtains another passport, the passport authority shall also impound or cause to be impounded or revoke such other passport. (c) if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public; (d) if the holder of the passport or travel document has, at any time after the issue of the passport or travel document, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India; (f) if any of the conditions of the passport or travel document has been contravened; (g) if the holder of the passport or travel document has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the same; (h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made.” 9. Counsel for the applicant contended that in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, even the Court cannot impound the passport.The Passport Act is a special law while CrPC is a general law. 10.As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nanda Vs. C.B.I reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1414, even the Court cannot impound the such passport, it only done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1967. 11.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. 11.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. 12.In the present case, neither the passport authority passed any order of impounding nor was any opportunity of hearing given to the applicant by the passport authority for impounding the document. It was only the Police authority which has retained possession of the passport. 13.In the opinion of this Court, this was clearly illegal. Under Section 10-A 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). 14.In my 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, 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 CrPC 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. 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. 15.For the aforesaid reasons, I set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the trial Court and direct the respondent to hand over the passport to the applicant. However, it shall be open to the respondent to approach the Passport Authorities under Section 10 or the authorities under Section 10-A of the Act for impounding the passport of the applicant in accordance with law. 16.However, make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and is not deciding whether the passport can be impounded as a condition for grant of bail. 17.The criminal revision stands disposed of accordingly.