M/S Suraj Freight Carrier PVT. LTD., Delhi Thru. Signatory Pradeep Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Suraj Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd., a carrier services company, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders that refused to release its seized goods and truck. The petitioner had been hired to transport goods from Ludhiana to Patna. On April 26, 2022, a truck (PB65M3850) hired by the petitioner was seized by police in Ayodhya, allegedly carrying illicit liquor. An FIR was registered under various sections of the IPC and the Excise Act. The petitioner's release application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, on September 19, 2022, who suggested depositing the market value of the truck and goods. A subsequent application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was also rejected, as was a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Faizabad, who held that Cr.P.C. provisions do not apply to special acts.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders were not legally sustainable because the concerned authorities failed to consider the settled proposition of law regarding the release of seized vehicles and goods. The Court emphasized that keeping seized property in police custody for extended periods, especially when it is subject to speedy and natural decay, serves no purpose and leads to its damage, causing mental and financial torture to the owner. The Court referred to the Apex Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, highlighting the need for prompt exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by magistrates. It also noted that the petitioner is a businessman of the seized articles, and their ownership is not disputed, nor claimed by the State or any other person. Therefore, keeping the articles would be futile. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to the District Magistrate to decide the release application afresh within three months, in accordance with the law and the Court's observations, unless there is a legal impediment or a higher court order staying proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders dated 25-07-2022 (Sessions Judge) and 19-09-2022 (District Magistrate) are legally sustainable, considering the settled proposition of law regarding the release of seized vehicles and goods pending trial or confiscation proceedings? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the goods were deteriorating and would become useless if kept in police custody. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and this Court's judgments in Nand Vs. State of U.P., Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., and Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., which held that pendency of confiscation proceedings is not a bar to releasing seized vehicles. The petitioner also highlighted the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. and expressed readiness to comply with any conditions for release. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the District Magistrate and judicial authorities passed justified orders with sound reasoning, and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 72, Section 60, Section 63, Section 451, Section 457
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34788 Court No. - 14 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5110 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Suraj Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Thru. Signatory Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Dubey,Alok Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner with the following prayer:- (1) To set-aside the order dated 25-07-2022 passed by the Learned petition) and order dated 19-09-2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya in Case No. 2359/2022 (Computerized No. builty, chalan, consolidated E-Way bills etc. (iii) Issue any appropriate orders or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem,just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petition.
Prosecution story narrated in the first information report is that on the information given by Mukhbir some persons were smuggling
2 illicit liquor to Bihar from Punjab. On the basis of this information, after some time the concerned police caught a Truck No. UP-42 BT- 1101 which appeared to be coming from Lucknow side, thereafter two persons were arrested. During interrogation they disclosed their names as Pawan Kumar (Signatory of the company-petitioner) and Mahendra Pal. As per the recovery memo, total 2575 liters illicit liquor contained in 8160 bottles alongwith other articles have been recovered from the aforesaid truck.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a private limited company having GST registration No. 07AAUCS4940E1Z1 and runs business of carrier services. In the month of April 2022, petitioner gets order of certain goods to be transported from Ludhiyana to Patna and in this regard petitioner had hired truck from Ahmadhgarh Transport Company, Plot No. 19, Uppal Market opposite Prakash Road Lines Transport Nagar, Ludhiyana having vehicle no. PB65M3850. But on the way to Faizabad the said vehicle was seized by the police of Police Station Kotwai Nagar, District Ayodhya on 26-04-2022 on the ground that illicit liquor was being smuggled in the said vehicle. Consequently, an FIR was registered by the police against the truck driver and one other person bearing case crime no. 298 of 2022 under Section 419,420,467,468,471 IPC and sections 60, 63 & 72 of Excise Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya on 26-04-2022. and the said truck containing 2575 litres of illicit liquor contained in 8160 bottles along with other articles were seized by the police.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had moved release application dated 8.8.2022 before District Magistrate, Ayodhya, who rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 19-09-2022 with the observation that it is open to the owner of the truck and the legal owner of the article to deposit equivalent amount of the market value of Truck as well loaded article thereafter they can take its delivery by paying the fine. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a release application under 3 Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad which was also rejected vide order dated 06-06-2022. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2022 against the order dated 06-06-2022 before the learned District and Session Judge, Faizabad and the learned District and Session Judge, Faizabad rejected the said revision on the ground that the provisions of Cr.P.C. would not apply in Special Acts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods contained in the vehicle is standing in open yard in the police station since long and the goods contained in the vehicle with the passage of time ultimately it will become junk and after sometime it would not be useful for any purpose. Reliance in this regard, has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Cr.P.C., which is quoted as under:- "451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody, (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court
4 during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions, which the court will impose while releasing the goods which is kept inside the vehicle. Undisputedly, petitioner has no concern with the said vehicle, he is a carrier and he had hired the said vehicle for transportation and was transporting certain goods and the relevant documents regarding transportation have been annexed with the affidavit:, namely GST registration of the petitioner as carrier, lorry hire Chalan loading slip and e-way bill and further submitted that the petitioner has also no concern with the seized liquor.
Per contra, learned Learned A.G.A. has argued that the District Magistrate as well as the judicial authorities have passed the justified order and has given sound reasons while passing the impugned orders and as such no interference in required in the matter and the present petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the relevant legal provisions and the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Excise Act. It has been clearly observed by this Court in para 7 that:- "I think it is not proper to allow the truck to be damaged by remaining stationed at police station. Admittedly, the ownership of the truck is not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not claim its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be proper and in the larger interest of public as well as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a Bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and files a bond that he shall be producing the truck as and when needed by the criminal courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the truck." 12. the release of vehicle seized u/s 60 of Excise Act.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, AIR 2003 SC 638 (supra) while dealing with the question of release of seized vehicles, in para 17 and 21 has been pleased to held as under:- "
In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles.
However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust
6 that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This Object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."
In the opinion of this Court, it is not disputed that the power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not properly and widely used by the authority concerned/court below while passing the orders. The power conferred under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by the court below/authority concerned with judicious mind and without any unnecessarily delay so that the litigant may not suffer. Merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it results in damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made.
Further, in the opinion of this Court, the procedure as contemplated under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. be also followed promptly, so that the concerned Magistrate may take prompt decision for disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of the said property, keeping the said property in the custody will not solve any purpose which gives a mental and financial torture to the owner of the said property which is also against the law and against the principles of natural justice.
As per the legal propositions mentioned above and keeping in mind the fact that undisputedly the applicant is a businessman of the seized article and the ownership of the article is not in dispute.
7 Moreover, neither the State nor any other person has claimed their ownership over the said article, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said article inside the vehicle which is stationed at the police station in the open yard or in any place for a long period allowing it to be damaged with the passage of time.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are not legally sustainable as the concerned authorities have not taken into consideration the settled proposition of law in this regard.
Accordingly, the instant petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is allowed and the impugned orders dated 25- 07-2022 passed by the Sessions Judge Faizabad,in Criminal Revision 19-09-2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya in Case No. 2359/2022 (Computerized No. D202204230002359) (State Vs Parmindar Singh Biling) are set-aside and the case is remitted to the concerned District Magistrate to decide the release application of the petitioner for release of the goods/articles afresh in accordance with law and the observations made herein-above within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, unless there is some legal impediment or unless there is any order passed by the higher court staying the proceedings of the case. Order Date :- 11-05-2023 GSY GULAB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.