Directly Approaching High Court Without Approaching Concerned Criminal Court U/S 451 Cr.P.C Not Proper: SC Dismisses Plea For Release Of Seized Vehicle
|The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for the release of a seized vehicle stating that directly approaching a High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution without approaching the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C was not the proper course.
The Court explained the distinction between confiscation and seizure of property noting that the proper procedure outlined under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C, which empowers a criminal court to decide on the custody and disposal of a seized property, was not followed.
Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “Section 98 deals with the Confiscation of the Articles whenever any offence punishable under the Act has been committed…However, Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. would come into play when the article property seized during the course of inquiry or investigation is produced before the jurisdictional Court as per Clause (a) of Section 132 and the Court is called upon to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of such article/property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or the trial. ”
AOR Disha Singh represented the appellant, while AOR Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the respondents.
The appellant’s vehicle was intercepted by the police during patrolling and the driver was allegedly carrying a large quantity of English liquor without any pass or permit. An FIR was registered against the driver under Section 65- (a)(e),81,98(2),116(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act (the Act) and Sections 465, 468, 471, 114 of the IPC.
The appellant, claiming ownership of the vehicle, had approached the Gujarat High Court seeking its release, but the application was rejected. Challenging this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The State of Gujarat contended that Section 98(2) of the Act forbids the release of a vehicle seized in connection with the transportation of liquor until the final judgment of the court.
“The power to seize an article may be exercised by the statutory authorities like police personnel, prohibition officers, revenue authorities etc. in accordance with the concerned Statutes, whereas the power of confiscation is normally exercised by the jurisdictional Courts in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Statutes,” the Court stated.
The Court observed that the vehicle in question was seized as it was allegedly carrying a huge quantity of liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity under the Act. “However, there is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the said vehicle was sought to be produced before the concerned court so as to invoke Section 451 of Cr.P.C or whether such vehicle was forwarded by the police officer to the concerned Magistrate as contemplated in Clause (a) of Section 132 of the said Act,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court had to clarify that the appellant did not adopt a proper course of procedure by approaching the High Court first instead of moving an application before the concerned criminal court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 285)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Disha Singh
Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal