Court’s Decision
The Gujarat High Court allowed the release of a seized vehicle (Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza) involved in a prohibition case, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that since no confiscation or auction proceedings had been initiated despite statutory amendments, the vehicle must be released to avoid deterioration, subject to stringent conditions.
Facts
The petitioner sought release of his vehicle seized in connection with an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Police, acting on a tip-off, intercepted the vehicle and discovered liquor being transported without valid permit. The vehicle was seized, and no further steps for confiscation or auction were initiated by the authorities as required under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act (as amended on 31.07.2024). The lower courts had denied interim custody of the vehicle.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the muddamal vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act?
- Whether the authorities complied with the post-amendment mandate of initiating confiscation/auction proceedings?
- Whether the vehicle can be released under Article 226 and Section 528 of BNSS when no confiscation has been undertaken?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that the vehicle should be released as per the ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], wherein the Supreme Court had discouraged prolonged retention of vehicles in police custody due to risk of deterioration. He argued that no confiscation proceedings had been initiated, and the vehicle was lying idle, thereby justifying its interim release.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the petition by referring to Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, asserting that the vehicle was used for transporting a prohibited quantity of liquor (more than 20 liters), making it liable for confiscation. They contended that release would be inappropriate and that the lower courts had rightly denied interim custody.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Sections 98, 123, and 132(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Section 497 of the BNSS [formerly Section 451 of CrPC], along with Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that although transporting liquor over the permitted limit attracts confiscation, the amended Section 98(2) mandates initiation of confiscation/auction proceedings, which was absent in this case.
Precedent Analysis
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283]
The Court relied heavily on this case to justify interim custody, reiterating that vehicles should not be left to rot in police stations. - Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat [2024 INSC 285]
This case reinforced the interpretation of amended Section 98(2), requiring timely action by authorities to confiscate or auction the vehicle.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that although the liquor quantity exceeded the permissible limit and theoretically invited confiscation, the authorities had failed to take any action under amended Section 98(2) to that effect. The vehicle remained idle without any official move for confiscation or auction. Thus, in line with Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court held that keeping the vehicle in the police station indefinitely was not justified.
Conclusion
The petition was allowed. The Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon:
- Furnishing a solvent surety equal to its market value;
- Giving an undertaking not to alter or sell the vehicle;
- Producing the vehicle when required;
- Re-surrendering the vehicle if future confiscation/auction proceedings are initiated;
- Accepting that the vehicle shall be confiscated if used for a future offence.
Photographs and panchanama of the vehicle were also mandated to be recorded, and the RTO was directed to restrict any transfer of the vehicle pending trial.
Implications
This judgment clarifies that vehicles seized under the Prohibition Act cannot be indefinitely detained without compliance with amended legal procedures. It ensures protection of private property from arbitrary state inaction while preserving the prosecution’s rights. The decision reinforces that judicial oversight will check administrative delays in initiating confiscation.
Cases Referred
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 – Allowed interim custody of seized vehicles to avoid decay.
- Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 285 – Clarified application of amended Section 98(2) requiring initiation of confiscation or auction proceedings.
FAQs
Q1. Can a seized vehicle be released even if liquor was transported illegally in it?
Yes, if no confiscation or auction proceedings have been initiated as per the amended Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the vehicle can be released to avoid deterioration.
Q2. What safeguards are imposed when such vehicles are released?
The vehicle owner must furnish a solvent surety, file an undertaking not to alter or sell the vehicle, and produce it when required. Future misuse may lead to confiscation.
Q3. Does this judgment set a precedent for all prohibition-related vehicle seizures?
It sets a precedent where authorities fail to initiate timely confiscation proceedings. The Court has clarified that judicial custody must not continue indefinitely without legal backing.
