Section 451 CrPC| Seized Property Should Not Be Retained In Custody For Period Longer Than Absolutely Necessary: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court allowed a petition that was filed to challenge a Court's order rejecting the release of a Mahindra Pickup Jeep used in an alleged violation of the Abkari Act by transporting 50 bottles of Old Admiral VSOP brandy in the above vehicle.
A Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that “Where the property, which has been the subject matter of an offence, is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases.”
The vehicle's registered owner had initially sought interim custody of the vehicle but didn't fulfill the conditions set by the court, leading to the vehicle being exposed to the elements for a couple of years. After his passing, her son, the petitioner, approached the court seeking the vehicle's release.
Advocate V. Visal Ajayan appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Advocate Neema TV appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner's argument revolved around the interpretation of Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C), which empowered the criminal Court to make orders for interim custody of property during trial and inquiry.
The Court was of the view that the Sessions Judge was unjustified in rejecting the application for the vehicle's release. The Court explained that “Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the criminal court to make orders for interim custody of the property produced before it during trial and inquiry. When the property is produced before the criminal court, regard being had to nature of the property so produced, the criminal court has a discretion to make such an order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such pending conclusion of enquiry or trial.”
The Court referred to the legal precedent of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State Of Gujarat which supported the idea that the court should release the property in a timely and judicious manner to prevent deterioration and loss of value.
In conclusion, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the vehicle to be released following the guidelines laid out by the Supreme Court in the Suderbhai case and with a fresh valuation as per the provisions of Section 53B of the Abkari Act.
Cause Title: Vinayakumar K.R v. State of Kerala, 2023:KER:52046
Click here to read/download the Order