Supreme Court clarifies procedure for release of vehicles seized under Gujarat Prohibition Act: Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala vs. State of Gujarat (2024) INSC 285 (08 April 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 08 April 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 285
Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a vehicle seized for carrying liquor be released before the final judgment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the procedure for releasing vehicles seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. This judgment emphasizes the importance of following the correct legal channels for seeking the release of seized property, particularly vehicles, and interprets the interplay between the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The bench comprised Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, claimed ownership of an Eicher vehicle (GJ 05-BT-0899) that was seized by the police. The vehicle was confiscated as a “Muddamal Article” in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered at Pardi Police Station, Valasad, Gujarat. The FIR, numbered 11200038231465/2023, alleged offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 98(2), and 116(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, as well as Sections 465, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police intercepted the vehicle based on a tip, finding it to be carrying 1240.200 litres of English liquor, valued at ₹7 lakhs, without a valid permit. The driver, Lakhabhai Khengarbhai (the appellant’s son), and others were booked on April 29, 2023.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, directly approached the High Court of Gujarat seeking the release of his vehicle by filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the application on 08.06.2023. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Key provisions include:

• Section 451 of the CrPC: This section empowers a criminal court to make orders for the proper custody of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial. It states:
  
  “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. — When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.”
• Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act: This section deals with the confiscation of articles related to offences under the Act. Sub-section (2) states:
  
  “(2) Any receptacle, package or covering in which any of the articles liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found and the other contents of such receptacle, package or covering and the animals, carts, vessels or other conveyances used in, carrying any such article shall like-wise be liable to confiscation by the order of the Court. [but it shall not be released on bond or surety till the final judgement of the Court where the quantity of the seized liquor is exceeding the quantity as may be prescribed by the rules.]”
• Section 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act: This section outlines the procedure for handling seized articles. It states:
  
  “132. Article seized – [When anything has been seized, under the provisions of this Act by a Prohibition Officer exercising powers under section 129 or by an Officer in-charge of a Police Station], or has been sent to him in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such officer, after such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, —
  (a) if it appears that such thing is required as evidence in the case of any person arrested, shall forward it to the Magistrate to whom such person is forwarded or for his appearance before whom bail has been taken,
  (b) if it appears that such thing is liable to confiscation but is not required as evidence as aforesaid, shall send it with a full report of the particulars of seizure to the Collector,
  (c) if no offence appears to have been committed shall return it to the person from whose possession it was taken.”

The Court noted that the term “confiscation” is not defined in either the Gujarat Prohibition Act or the CrPC. The Court referred to Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines “confiscation” as “seizure of property for the public treasury” and “seizure” as “an act of taking possession of a person or property by legal right or process.”

Arguments

The following arguments were presented by the parties:

• Appellant’s Argument:
  • The appellant, being the owner of the vehicle, sought its release pending the trial.
  • The appellant argued that the vehicle should not be kept idle at the police station and should be released to him.
  • The appellant directly approached the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the release of the vehicle.
• Respondent (State of Gujarat)’s Argument:
  • The State contended that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act prohibits the release of a vehicle carrying liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity until the final judgment of the court.
  • The State highlighted that the seized quantity of liquor (1240 litres) far exceeded the prescribed limit of 20 litres, as per the Notification dated 02.07.2019.
  • The State argued that the vehicle was subject to confiscation and could not be released on bond or surety.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment, however, the core issue can be summarised as:

1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the application seeking release of the vehicle, without approaching the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
2. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act imposes an absolute bar on the release of vehicles carrying liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity, before the final judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the order to be passed by the Criminal Court for custody and disposal of the property produced before the court pending an inquiry or trial.
• Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949: Deals with the articles liable to confiscation.
• Section 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949: Deals with the procedure to be followed after the seizure of the articles.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283:* The Court followed this judgment, reiterating that it is not useful to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and that magistrates should pass appropriate orders for their custody pending trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to adhere to the correct legal procedure. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have first approached the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC, which provides a specific mechanism for dealing with the custody of property during a trial. The Court also noted that the second part of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which restricts the release of vehicles carrying excess liquor, is not happily worded and requires a harmonious interpretation with other provisions of the Act and the CrPC. The Court focused on the procedural aspect rather than the merits of the case.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The appellant had not followed the correct procedure by directly approaching the High Court without first seeking relief from the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC.
• The Court observed that the second part of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which restricts the release of vehicles carrying excess liquor, is not happily worded and requires a harmonious interpretation with other provisions of the Act and the CrPC.
• The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] that it is not useful to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and that magistrates should pass appropriate orders for their custody pending trial.

The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the interpretation of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse by the appellant. The court clarified that the appellant could approach the concerned criminal court to seek the release of the vehicle.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “When there is a specific statutory provision contained in the Cr.P.C. empowering the criminal court to pass appropriate order for the proper custody and disposal of the property pending the inquiry or trial, the appellant could not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of his vehicle.”
• “However, in our opinion, this incorporation of the second part by amendment in 2011 is not very happily worded, and therefore, it is seen as an embargo.”
• “Thus, on the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section 98 and 132 of the said Act and of Section 451 Cr.PC, it is discernible that all these provisions operate in different fields.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Proper Procedure: Individuals seeking the release of seized property must first approach the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
• Harmonious Interpretation: Provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, particularly Section 98(2), must be interpreted harmoniously with other provisions of the Act and the CrPC.
• Custody of Seized Vehicles: Seized vehicles should not be kept idle at police stations for long periods; magistrates should pass appropriate orders for their custody pending trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that it is open for the Appellant to approach the concerned Court where the property/vehicle in question is sought to be produced during the course of inquiry or trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the proper procedure for seeking the release of seized property, particularly vehicles, is to approach the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court also clarified that the second part of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which restricts the release of vehicles carrying excess liquor, needs harmonious interpretation with other provisions of the Act and the CrPC. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the correct legal channels for seeking remedies and ensures that seized property is handled in accordance with established legal procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant should have first approached the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC. The Court clarified the procedure for seeking the release of seized vehicles under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, highlighting the importance of following the correct legal channels. The Court also noted that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act needs to be interpreted harmoniously with other provisions of the Act and the CrPC.

Category:

• Criminal Law
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949
  • Section 98, Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949
  • Section 132, Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949
• Vehicle Seizure
  • Release of Seized Vehicle

FAQ

Q: What should I do if my vehicle is seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act?
A: You should first approach the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the custody of your vehicle. Only after exhausting this remedy, can you approach the High Court.

Q: Can a vehicle seized for carrying liquor be released before the final judgment?
A: The Supreme Court has clarified that the release of a vehicle seized for carrying liquor is subject to the procedure under Section 451 CrPC. The court did not directly rule on whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act imposes an absolute bar on release, but noted that this provision needs harmonious interpretation with other laws.

Q: What is Section 451 of the CrPC?
A: Section 451 of the CrPC empowers a criminal court to make orders for the proper custody of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial. This includes vehicles seized in connection with criminal cases.

Q: What is Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act?
A: Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act deals with the confiscation of articles related to offences under the Act, including vehicles used to transport liquor. It states that such vehicles cannot be released on bond or surety until the final judgment if the quantity of seized liquor exceeds the prescribed limit.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about keeping seized vehicles at police stations?
A: The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not useful to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods. Magistrates should pass appropriate orders for their custody pending trial.