Moving HC Under Articles 226/227 To Release Seized Vehicle Without Approaching Magistrate Under Sec.451 CrPC Not Proper: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that approaching the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the release of the seized vehicle would not be a proper remedy without approaching the magistrate under Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”).

“When there is a specific statutory provision contained in the Cr.P.C. empowering the criminal court to pass appropriate order for the proper custody and disposal of the property pending the inquiry or trial, the appellant could not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of his vehicle.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said.

The case relates to the seizure of the vehicle by the police which was allegedly carrying a huge quantity of liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity. The appellant/vehicle's owner without approaching the magistrate under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. directly approached the High Court by exercising its writ jurisdiction.

Holding that the appellant without approaching the magistrate court under Section 451, Cr. P.C directly approached the High Court by filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Judgment authored by Justice Bela M Trivedi held that the remedy exercised by the appellant could not be said to be the proper course of action for getting the custody of the property i.e. the vehicle in question in this case.

Section 451 of Cr.P.C. pertains to the order to be passed by the Criminal Court for custody and disposal of the property produced before the court pending an inquiry or trial.

The court expressed doubt on whether the seized vehicle was produced before the concerned court or not.

“In absence of any such factual material placed on record, it is difficult to release the vehicle in question in favour of the appellant.”, the court said.

However, the court clarified that when the seized property/vehicle is produced before the concerned Criminal Court, it is incumbent on the part of the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders for keeping the vehicle in proper custody pending the trial.

“It is also true that as held by this Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period and it is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of the said such vehicles during the pendency of the trial.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the court clarified that it shall be open for the Appellant to approach the concerned Court where the property/vehicle in question is sought to be produced during the course of inquiry or trial.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Mr. Shivendu Gaur, Adv. Mrs. Nidhi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohit, Adv. Mr. Madhusudan Singh, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Parshant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.

Case Title: KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment