Sri Dipu Thomas vs. The State Of Tripura

Held

The Court decided to release the seized rubber consignment in favour of the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner is a registered dealer with a considerable turnover and that holding up the consignment until the trial concludes would result in significant loss and damage, including potential deterioration of the rubber's quality. The Court also noted that the petitioner was not shown as a co-accused at that stage. Therefore, to mitigate the petitioner's immediate financial hardship while keeping the prosecution's rights open, the Court ordered the release of the rubber. The conditions for release included furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee of 25% of the goods' value (approximately Rs. 10,00,000/-) in favour of the Superintendent of Police, and a bond for the remaining 75% (Rs. 30,00,000/-). The release was to be done after drawing a proper panchnama. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the finer details of the prosecution's allegations at this prima facie stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Dipu Thomas, a partner in North-East Rubber Company, filed a petition for the release of rubber sheets seized by the police. The firm, dealing in rubber, had procured 24,000 Kgs. of natural rubber costing Rs. 38,88,000/- for a supply to MRF Limited in Telangana. IGST of Rs. 1,94,400/- was deposited. The consignment, booked on 24.7.2021, was intercepted by police on a tipoff. It was found that the truck, carrying 18,750 Kgs. of rubber, also contained 3390 Kgs. of ganja hidden beneath the rubber sheets. The police seized the vehicle, rubber, and ganja. The petitioner claims to be a bona fide dealer and unaware of the contraband, suffering damages due to the seizure and inability to fulfill its supply obligation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a bona fide dealer of rubber, can be held liable for contraband goods concealed within his consignment, unknown to him, thereby warranting the release of the seized rubber sheets? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is a bona fide dealer of rubber and had no knowledge of the contraband goods concealed by the transporter or driver. He contended that he should not be made liable for the illegal actions of others and that the seizure of his rubber sheets, valued at approximately Rs. 40 lakhs, is causing him significant financial loss and damage due to his inability to meet supply commitments. He emphasized that the trial may take years, during which the rubber's quality could deteriorate. Respondent's contention: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the rubber consignment is open to confiscation if charges are proved. He highlighted the systematic attempt to conceal contraband with rubber sheets and pointed out the suspicious route taken by the vehicle (Agartala to Udaipur, not towards Telangana), suggesting complicity or knowledge.