Chan Mia vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the seized betel nuts, being perishable, should not be kept in custody for an extended period, which could lead to deterioration. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to verify the documents furnished by the petitioner, including e-way bills, invoices, and GST-related documents. If these documents are found to be in order and the petitioner is established as the rightful owner, the seized articles are to be handed over to him on appropriate terms and conditions. This aligns with the Supreme Court's view in cases like Ambalal Sundarbhai vs. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the prompt return of seized perishable goods. The Court also mandated adherence to necessary procedures, such as taking photographs and preparing an inventory, and required the petitioner to furnish an undertaking to produce the articles or their proceeds for the trial. The Court expressly left undecided the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner regarding the alleged contraband nature of the betel nuts, focusing solely on the interim custody of the seized goods.

Facts

The petitioner, Chan Mia, challenged an order dated 25.05.2026 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon, which denied him custody of 135 bags of betel nuts. The betel nuts were seized on 04.05.2026 by the New Bongaigaon GRP based on information about contraband Burmese supari. The petitioner claimed the betel nuts were legally purchased from Tripura and destined for Karnataka. The Magistrate rejected the petitioner's plea for custody (Zimma) citing a report from the Investigating Officer stating that GST-related documents, e-way bills, and tax invoices were not fully verified and showed inconsistencies. The petitioner had provided e-way bills indicating purchase from Mahamad Ala Uddin and Suhana Enterprise and dispatch from his concern, Madina Basanalaya.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for Zimma (custody) of the seized betel nuts on 25.05.2026, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the documents submitted by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the seized betel nuts are perishable and should be returned to him without unnecessary delay, as per Supreme Court decisions. He contended that he had provided e-way bills and other relevant documents to establish his ownership and the legal nature of the transaction. The petitioner relied on the principle that seized articles should be entrusted to the owner to prevent deterioration. The State, represented by the learned APP, submitted that a report was called for from the Investigating Officer but had not yet been received. The State did not present a detailed argument against the petitioner's claim for custody but indicated a pending investigation report.