Supreme Court quashes non-refundable deposit for vehicle release in illegal liquor transportation case: Syed Basheer vs. State (2022) INSC 24

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 24
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a High Court impose a condition of non-refundable deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund for the release of a vehicle seized in connection with illegal transportation of liquor? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal against a Madras High Court order. The core issue revolved around the legality of a condition imposed by the High Court for the release of a vehicle seized for allegedly transporting liquor illegally. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari, overturned the High Court’s order regarding the non-refundable deposit.

Case Background

The case began when the appellant’s vehicle, a TATA 407 (Turbo) Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-01-C-8853, was seized by the Karuppur police in connection with Case Crime No. 178/2021. The allegation was that the vehicle was used for the illegal transportation of liquor bottles. The appellant then filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Salem, which had not ordered the release of the vehicle. The appellant sought the return of his vehicle.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Salem, seeking the release of his vehicle. After the Magistrate did not grant the release, the appellant filed a criminal revision under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court directed the release of the vehicle but imposed certain conditions, including a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against this specific condition.

Legal Framework

The appellant filed a criminal revision under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:
“The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.”

The appellant also invoked Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which states:
“In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or, on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when exercising such powers, the High Court may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by it in an appeal, and further may enhance the sentence; and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be dealt with in the manner provided by section 392.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court was correct in directing the release of the vehicle, but the condition of depositing Rs. 1,00,000 as a non-refundable amount to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund was unwarranted and lacked any statutory basis. The appellant contended that while conditions could be imposed for the release of the vehicle, they must be reasonable and related to the case.

The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its counsel, did not specifically defend the condition of the non-refundable deposit but appeared to argue that the High Court had the power to impose such conditions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the core issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in imposing a condition of a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund for the release of the vehicle.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or books in its decision. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the lack of statutory basis for the High Court’s condition.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court considered **Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973** and **Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973** to understand the scope of the High Court’s power in revision. The Court found that these sections do not provide any statutory basis for imposing a condition of non-refundable deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the lack of statutory basis for the High Court’s imposition of a non-refundable deposit. The Court emphasized that while the High Court has the power to impose conditions for the release of a vehicle, such conditions must be grounded in law. The Court was also concerned about the financial burden placed on the appellant without any legal justification.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was straightforward. It noted that the High Court was justified in directing the release of the vehicle and imposing conditions (i), (ii), (iv) and (v), but the condition of a non-refundable deposit lacked any legal basis. The Court stated:
“…there was no warrant to impose a requirement of deposit of a non-refundable amount of Rs 1 lakh in the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund. Such a direction was not based on any statutory provision and was hence not warranted.”

The Court emphasized that any condition imposed by a court must have a legal foundation. The absence of such a foundation led the Court to set aside the specific condition. The Court also stated, “In our considered view, while the High Court was justified in directing the release of the vehicle and imposing the condition Nos (i), (ii), (iv) and (v), there was no warrant to impose a requirement of deposit of a non-refundable amount of Rs 1 lakh in the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund.”

The court further clarified, “Such a direction was not based on any statutory provision and was hence not warranted.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts cannot impose conditions for the release of seized vehicles that lack a statutory basis.
• ✓ Conditions imposed must be reasonable and related to the case.
• ✓ Non-refundable deposits to public relief funds without legal backing are not permissible.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the removal of condition No (iii) contained in paragraph 7 of the High Court’s judgment and order dated 29 September 2021, which required the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 as a non-refundable deposit in the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts cannot impose conditions for the release of seized vehicles that lack a statutory basis. This clarifies the scope of the High Court’s power while ordering the release of vehicles seized in criminal cases. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this case reinforces that any such conditions must be rooted in statutory provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Syed Basheer vs. State (2022) INSC 24 clarifies that while High Courts have the power to impose conditions for the release of seized vehicles, these conditions must be based on statutory provisions and be reasonable. The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s condition of a non-refundable deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund, emphasizing that such a condition lacked any legal basis. This judgment underscores the importance of statutory backing for any judicial order, especially those that impose financial burdens on individuals.