The appeal involves the ownership claim of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, with registration no. GJ 05-BT-0899. The appellant sought release of the vehicle in the Special Criminal Application No. 6465 of 2023 before the High Court, who dismissed the application. The present appeal challenges the High Court’s decision on the custody of the vehicle.
Facts
- The appellant claimed ownership of the vehicle Eicher 10.80 (Blue) with registration no. GJ 05-BT-0899.
- The vehicle was seized as Muddamal Article in connection with FIR no. 11200038231465/2023 for offenses under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and IPC.
- The Special Criminal Application No. 6465 of 2023 was filed before the High Court seeking release of the vehicle.
- The High Court dismissed the application through an order dated 08.06.2023.
- The present Appeal has been filed against the High Court’s decision.
Also Read: Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd. v. HIMUDA Legal Case Summary
Analysis
- Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C deals with the disposal of property. The first part of Section 98 discusses confiscation of articles and conveyances used to transport them.
- The second part of Section 98, added by an amendment in 2011, imposes an embargo on releasing a vehicle if it carried liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity until the final judgment.
- The conjunction ‘but’ after a comma in a provision denotes an exception or proviso to the main provision.
- Provisions about confiscation of articles and powers of courts and authorities are outlined in the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
- Seizure and confiscation are not defined terms, typically related to legal possession and public treasury respectively.
- In a case involving illegal liquor transportation, the police seized a vehicle carrying a large quantity of liquor without proper permits.
- Section 98(2) of the Act prohibits releasing a vehicle if the seized liquor quantity surpasses the prescribed limit until final court judgment.
- The proper procedure involves approaching the concerned court under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C for custody or disposal of seized property during trial.
- Directly seeking High Court intervention via Article 226/227 without following proper procedures isn’t the correct method for property custody matters.
- The second part of Section 98(2) comes into play when seized articles are sent to the Collector, not required as evidence.
- Overall, the judgment dismisses the appeal and highlights the importance of following legal procedures for the custody and disposal of seized property.
- Section 98 deals with the articles liable to confiscation when an offence under the Act is committed.
- It includes intoxicants, hemp, mhowra flowers, molasses, and related materials.
- Any receptacle or package containing these articles and the conveyances used can also be confiscated.
- The seized liquor cannot be released on bond until the final judgment of the Court.
- Section 98 and Section 132 operate in different fields regarding custody and disposal of property during inquiries or trials.
- Seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods.
- Magistrate should pass appropriate orders for the custody of seized vehicles during trial.
- Appellant did not follow the correct procedure by directly approaching High Court instead of the criminal court for custody of the vehicle.
- Appellant should have sought custody of the vehicle through Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
Also Read: State v. Satyendar Kumar Jain: Money Laundering Case
Case Title: KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2024 INSC 285)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001547-001547 / 2024
