Kamal Hassan Miah vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that seized property, once the necessity to retain it ceases, should generally be delivered in interim custody to the rightful owner pending trial. Citing Sunderbhai Ambalal v. State, the Court emphasized the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 CrPC. In this case, there was a high possibility of the rice perishing over time, and no claim of dishonest taking from anyone's possession was made. The sample analysis report indicated the rice was of Fair Average Quality (FAQ) despite minor damage and discoloration. Therefore, the Court directed the release of the 500 bags of rice in the interim custody of the petitioner, Kamal Hassan Miah, upon executing a bond of Rs. 3,50,000/-, to be deposited with the Court as and when directed. The petition was disposed of with this direction.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamal Hassan Miah, a rice trader operating M/s. A. K. Enterprise, sought the interim custody (zimma) of 500 bags of rice seized by the Azara Police Station in connection with Case No. 422/2018 under Section 379 IPC. The rice was intercepted on a truck suspected of carrying fake challans. The petitioner claimed the rice was transported from his enterprise to Shillong under a valid invoice/challan with GST No. 18ECEPK6949E1ZA, asserting it was not stolen property. A zimma petition filed before the Eleka Magistrate was rejected on July 9, 2018. The petitioner argued that no one alleged theft and that Section 145 CrPC mandates prompt disposal of perishable goods. The State did not oppose the release, subject to conditions, as the Food Corporation of India could not confirm if the rice was PDS and the petitioner produced documents claiming ownership.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized 500 bags of rice should be released in the interim custody of the petitioner, Kamal Hassan Miah, pending investigation/trial, considering the provisions of Section 145 and Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? Petitioner's Arguments: - The seized rice was transported under valid invoices/challans with GST, indicating it was not stolen property. - No FIR was filed alleging theft of the rice. - Section 145 CrPC mandates the disposal of petitions for zimma of seized perishable goods without unnecessary delay. - The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal v. State (2002 AIR SCW 5301) held that powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The rice was seized suspecting it to be stolen property. - The Food Corporation of India could not confirm if the seized rice was PDS. - The seized rice may be released in the zimma of the petitioner, subject to suitable conditions, as he produced documents claiming rightful ownership.