M/S Madina Basanalaya vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The High Court held that the application 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 remedy for the disposal of property during the investigation stage, and the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available before the Magistrate. The Court clarified that Section 457 Cr.P.C. applies when the factum of seizure has been reported to a Magistrate and the property has not been produced during an inquiry or trial, but at the stage of investigation. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Arun Shankar Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code. Therefore, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the legality of the areca nuts, the petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. The Court noted that any such application made before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court would be proceeded with in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Madina Basanalaya, filed an application under Section 482 read with 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 was based on an FIR registered on February 18, 2024, alleging smuggling of foreign-origin areca nuts. The petitioner claimed to have legally purchased Indian local dried areca nuts, paid GST on them, and sold them to a buyer in Karnataka, with the goods being transported by rail. The petitioner asserted that the seized areca nuts were procured legally and taxes were paid, and that they are a respected businessman not involved in illegal activities. The State opposed the prayer, stating that the investigation was in its preliminary stage and reports from food analysis and agriculture departments were awaited.

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 arguments: The petitioner contended that the seized areca nuts were legally procured and taxes were paid, implying no illegality. They sought custody of the seized goods. The petitioner also argued that since the seized items were produced by the Investigating Officer before the Magistrate through the seizure list, Section 457 Cr.P.C. might not apply as the property was produced before the Court. Revenue's arguments: The State opposed the prayer for custody, highlighting that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and awaiting crucial reports regarding the nature and origin of the seized articles. They implicitly argued that the seized goods should remain in custody pending investigation.