Court’s Decision
The Gujarat High Court allowed the release of a Mahindra TUV300 seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, observing that since no confiscation or auction proceedings had been initiated despite the lapse of time, continued custody of the vehicle by the police would lead to its deterioration. The Court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applying the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, to direct release of the vehicle with strict conditions.
Facts
The petitioner sought the release of a Mahindra TUV300 vehicle seized during a police patrolling operation based on secret information. The vehicle was allegedly found transporting liquor without a valid permit, resulting in the registration of an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act at Naswadi Police Station, Chhota-Udaipur. No proceedings for confiscation or auction of the vehicle had been initiated even after a considerable passage of time.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle despite the offence falling under the Gujarat Prohibition Act?
- Whether the absence of initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act warranted the release of the vehicle?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 to order release of seized property, especially when the vehicle remains unused and is deteriorating in police custody. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, which cautioned against leaving vehicles in police stations where they become junk.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State objected to the petition by arguing that the vehicle carried prohibited goods in excess of the permissible limit, and as such, was liable for confiscation under Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. It was contended that this case was not fit for invoking the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Sections 98, 123, and 132(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act along with Section 497 of the BNSS [analogous to Section 451 of the CrPC]. The amended Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act (amended on 31.07.2024) requires the competent authority to initiate confiscation proceedings or approach the Magistrate for such actions.
Precedent Analysis
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] – The Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to rot in police custody and emphasized timely release under appropriate safeguards.
- Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat [2024 INSC 285] – Reiterated the need for prompt action under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for confiscation and/or auction, failing which release may be ordered.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that:
- No confiscation or auction proceedings had been initiated under the amended Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.
- The vehicle was lying unattended in police custody and was subject to decay.
- Courts below rightly denied interim custody earlier due to liquor quantity exceeding the permissible limit, but the delay in confiscation proceedings justified judicial intervention.
- The law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai mandated avoiding deterioration of vehicles by ordering release with conditions.
Conclusion
The petition was allowed. The Trial Court was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on the following conditions:
- Petitioner must furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value as per FIR/panchnama.
- File an undertaking not to change vehicle’s identity, appearance, or ownership till trial concludes.
- Produce vehicle when directed by court.
- If future confiscation/auction is initiated, vehicle must be returned to the authority.
- On repetition of the offence, vehicle shall be confiscated.
- Police to photograph and document the vehicle before release; photos to form part of chargesheet.
- Concerned RTO to be notified, and transfer of the vehicle to remain restrained unless permitted by the Trial Court.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the necessity of prompt action under amended Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. In absence of such action, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to prevent further deterioration of seized property. It upholds the balance between statutory prohibition and protection of private property, subject to judicial safeguards.
Referred Cases and Their Significance
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat – Cited to justify interim custody release to prevent damage to seized vehicles.
- Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat – Emphasized the necessity for timely initiation of confiscation proceedings under the amended law.
FAQs
Q1. Can a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act be released before confiscation proceedings are initiated?
Yes, as per the Gujarat High Court, if confiscation proceedings under Section 98(2) are not initiated, the vehicle may be released to avoid deterioration.
Q2. What safeguards must a petitioner provide for release of a seized vehicle?
The petitioner must provide a solvent surety, file undertakings not to alter the vehicle, and agree to surrender it if confiscation proceedings are later initiated.
Q3. What if a second offence occurs using the same vehicle?
The court clearly stated that in such an event, the vehicle shall stand confiscated without further relief.
