M/S Swarnali Traders vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. provides a specific statutory remedy for the disposal of seized property when it has not been produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, which is applicable during the investigation stage. The Court noted that the seized articles had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) through the seizure list, and the Magistrate had seen them. However, the Court clarified that Section 457 Cr.P.C. refers to the stage of investigation, and the power to grant custody of seized items at this stage lies with the Magistrate Court. The petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Cr.P.C. but chose not to avail it. Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court also referenced the Apex Court's decision in Arun Shankar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked in matters covered by specific provisions of the Code. The Court directed that any application made before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court would be proceeded with in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Swarnali Traders, filed an application under Section 482 read with Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. seeking custody of areca nuts seized by the Government Railway Police (GRP) at Guwahati Railway Station on February 17, 2024. The seizure occurred based on an FIR registered on February 18, 2024, alleging smuggling and illegal transportation of areca nuts suspected to be of foreign origin. The petitioner claimed to have legally purchased Indian local dried areca nuts from authorized traders in Tripura, paid GST on these purchases, and sold them to a company in Karnataka. The petitioner stated that the seized areca nuts were transported by road and then by rail, and that the GRP offloaded the goods suspecting them to be smuggled foreign areca nuts. The petitioner asserted they are a respected businessman and not involved in illegal activities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can entertain a petition for the custody of seized property when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the seized areca nuts were legally purchased and taxes were paid, and therefore, they are entitled to their custody. They sought the return of 11,970 kgs of areca nuts. The petitioner implicitly argued that the seizure was unjustified and that the High Court should intervene to secure the ends of justice. Revenue's (State's) Argument: The State opposed the prayer for custody, submitting that the investigation was in its preliminary stage. Samples of the seized articles had been sent for food analysis and origin ascertainment, and the reports were awaited. The State argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Magistrate Court under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.