Supreme Court quashes non-refundable deposit for vehicle release: Syed Basheer vs. State (2022) INSC 89

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 89

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a court order the release of a seized vehicle be conditional upon a non-refundable deposit to a public relief fund? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of judicial discretion in such matters. The core issue revolved around the legality of a High Court’s order mandating a deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund as a prerequisite for releasing a vehicle seized in connection with a crime. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The appellant, Syed Basheer, owned a TATA 407 (Turbo) Tempo bearing Registration No KA-01-C-8853. This vehicle was seized by the Karuppur police in connection with Case Crime No 178/2021. The police alleged that the vehicle was used for the illegal transportation of liquor bottles. Consequently, the vehicle was impounded.

Syed Basheer then filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking the return of his vehicle. The High Court, while ordering the release of the vehicle, imposed several conditions. One of these conditions required Syed Basheer to deposit a sum of Rs 1,00,000 as a non-refundable deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund. Aggrieved by this particular condition, Syed Basheer appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The appellant instituted a criminal revision under Section 397(1) and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These sections pertain to the High Court’s power of revision to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court.

Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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.”

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:
“High Court’s powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, 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 the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s imposition of a non-refundable deposit of Rs 1 lakh to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund was arbitrary and without any legal basis.
• The appellant contended that while the High Court was justified in directing the release of the vehicle and imposing other conditions, the condition of the non-refundable deposit was not supported by any statutory provision.

State’s Arguments:

• The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its counsel, did not specifically defend the condition of the non-refundable deposit but appeared in response to the notice issued by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

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

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case law or legal provisions other than the mentioned Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court’s decision was primarily based on the absence of any statutory basis for the High Court’s imposition of a non-refundable deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the basis of the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any legal or statutory basis for the High Court’s imposition of a non-refundable deposit to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund. The Court emphasized that such a condition could not be justified without a specific legal provision allowing it. The court was of the view that the High Court’s order was not based on any statutory provision and was hence not warranted.

The Court observed that “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 stated that “Such a direction was not based on any statutory provision and was hence not warranted.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts cannot impose conditions for the release of seized property that are not supported by law.
• Judicial orders must be rooted in statutory provisions and cannot be arbitrary.
• The imposition of a non-refundable deposit to a public relief fund, without a legal basis, is not permissible.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the condition No (iii) contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 September 2021, which required the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs 1 lakh as a non-refundable deposit in the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund, be set aside. The other conditions imposed by the High Court for the release of the vehicle were upheld.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts cannot impose conditions for the release of seized property that are not supported by any statutory provision. This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial orders must have a legal basis and cannot be arbitrary. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions when issuing judicial orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Basheer and set aside the High Court’s condition requiring a non-refundable deposit of Rs 1 lakh to the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund for the release of his vehicle. The Court held that such a condition lacked any statutory basis. This judgment clarifies that judicial orders must be rooted in law and cannot impose arbitrary conditions.