Court Ought Not Sit On Seized Property For Years Without Cause; Applications U/S.451 CrPC Have To Be Disposed Of Expeditiously & Judiciously: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed in a criminal case concerning the transportation of prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor in an truck.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court
While directing the handover of the interim custody of a vehicle allegedly found transporting IMFL under the guise of transport goods to the , the Supreme Court has held that the Court ought not sit on seized property for years without cause.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Ahmedabad High Court in a criminal case concerning the transportation of prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor in an Ashok Leyland Truck.
The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar stated, “The Courts below have thus seriously erred in taking a narrow view of the powers under Sections 451, 457, 458 and 459 of the Cr.PC. The legislative purpose of these provisions is to grant courts broad discretion to assess a variety of factors and direct the custody or disposal of any property produced during inquiry or trial.”
“Applications under Section 451 CrPC have to be disposed of “expeditiously and judiciously” keeping in mind: (i) the owner’s interest and preventing hardship from loss of use or misappropriation; (ii) public/State interest in avoiding indefinite custody by police & courts; (iii) evidence preservation, and using panchanama and photographs where the actual item need not be produced at trial; and; (iv) safeguarding the integrity of trial by recording evidence promptly to prevent tampering. A court ought not sit on seized property for years without cause”, it added.
Factual Background
The incident and seizure took place during night when the subject vehicle was found transporting IMFL under the guise of transport goods while traveling from Modasa towards Vadodara via Lunawada. The truck was then intercepted, the vehicle’s registration number was confirmed and the seizure was effected. The driver, who was alone in the subject vehicle, identified himself as Qasid Mohammad Khan and when asked about the vehicle, he stated that it contained miscellaneous goods belonging to the appellant, M/S ABC Express. Upon opening the rear doors, the Police found plastic bags, plastic boxes and khakicoloured cardboard boxes which contained bottles of IMFL. The driver was unable to produce a pass or permit for transporting the liquor. The truck and driver were taken into Police custody and brought to the Local Crime Branch office, where the subject vehicle was unloaded and counted in the presence of the panch witnesses.
A huge quantity of IMFL in 8,064 bottles was consequently recovered which amounted to approximately 22,532.253 litres, with a cumulative value of Rs 17,02,656. The vehicle also contained edible transport goods of Rs. 98,66,552. A case was then registered and dispatched to the concerned Court for offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Charges were maintained under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Prohibition Act against four accused persons including the driver - Qasid Mohammad Khan.
The appellant moved an application for release of subject vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunawada, seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which was rejected. The Sessions Judge affirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant thereafter challenged the order before the High Court but the revision dismissed the revision application. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, made it clear that in the matter of interim custody, the Courts are necessarily constrained to make some preliminary determination. “The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Prohibition Act (as amended) itself expresses what Courts have been reiterating time and again since and in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat vehicles, prevented from being released back to their owners under Section 98(2), languish and deteriorate sitting in a police station or court compound until final disposal of the criminal case. This benefits no one and causes major losses to the owner”, it added.
The Bench explained that Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is not an absolute embargo and the Trial Court must exercise its powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736 to pass appropriate order on the interim custody of the articles produced before the Court.
The Bench stated, “Continued seizure of the truck causes it real and ongoing loss of livelihood to the appellant. The vehicle occupies space in the Police Station and serves no further purpose lying idle at the Police Station deteriorating and losing value with each passing day.”
Considering that the chargesheet had already been filed, the Bench noted that any remaining evidentiary value may be preserved through panchnama, photography and videography, as was done when the appellant’s edible goods were released pursuant to the earlier orders of the Court. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized the question as to what purpose is actually served by continued custody and placing the vehicle in a state of suspended animation”, it stated.
The Bench stated that the Prohibition Act contemplates its own procedure for confiscation which includes notice to the owner, opportunity of hearing, option to pay in lieu of fine, and the same cannot stand in the way of the relief sought in the instant appeal.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the orders passed by the Courts below and directed handover of the interim custody of the subject vehicle to the appellant subject to some conditions.
Cause Title: M/S ABC Express v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 940)