M/S Puranmal Satyanarain Sawai Madhopur vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Puranmal Satyanarain, through its proprietor Deepesh Agarwal, filed a petition challenging orders from the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sawai Madhopur. These orders had dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 451/457 CrPC, refusing to release seized property. On October 10, 2023, police seized 15,828.13 kg of crackers and fireworks from the petitioner's godown, alleging the absence of a valid license for storage/sale. An FIR was registered, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner claimed to possess a valid license, renewed from November 9, 2023, to March 31, 2024, and that the seized goods, worth approximately Rs. 20 lacs, were purchased with due taxes paid. The petitioner argued the goods were perishable and sought their release for sale, subject to furnishing security.
Held
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders of the lower courts. The Court held that the seized fireworks and crackers are subject to speedy and natural decay, and their prolonged storage would render them unusable, leading to a failure of justice. The Court noted that the prosecution had not disputed the petitioner's ownership of the seized goods, nor had confiscation proceedings been initiated. Relying on the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of perishable goods. The application for release and sale was allowed subject to the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 20 lacs, which would not be encashed until the final conclusion of the criminal case. Additionally, the seized articles were to be photographed and videographed with visible details for use as evidence during the trial.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seized fireworks and crackers, being subject to speedy and natural decay, should be released to the petitioner for sale under Section 451/457 CrPC, despite the ongoing criminal trial for alleged storage/sale without a valid license? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seized fireworks are perishable and will become unusable if not released promptly. They argued that they possess a valid license for storage and sale, and the goods were purchased legally, with taxes including GST paid. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, emphasizing the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 CrPC, and a Madras High Court order in K. Baskar Vs. State, which allowed the release of seized fireworks in similar circumstances. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State) did not dispute the petitioner's ownership of the seized goods or the fact that the petitioner has been in the business of selling firecrackers for years. The prosecution's case for seizure was based solely on the alleged lack of a valid license on the date of inspection.
Sections Cited
Section 451, Section 457, Section 286, Section 336, Section 5, Section 9-B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 12/03/2024
In this petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sawai Madhopur, dismissing criminal revision petition No.8/2024 filed by petitioner-firm and order dated 24.01.2024 passed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, dismissing application of petitioner filed under Section 451/457 CrPC refusing to release seized property i.e. Crackers and Fireworks and further prayer has been made by petitioner to allow his application dated 05.12.2023, granting permission to return his seized articles of crackers and fireworks and allowing to sale/ alienate such articles, which are in the nature of speedy and natural decay.
Heard counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record made available before this Court.
[2024:RJ-JP:12444] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1204/2024]
Briefly stated, facts of case are that during patrolling in the city of Sawai Madhopur on 10.10.2023 at about 07:00 PM, ASI, Jitendra Singh accompanied with his team, seized crackers and fireworks weighing 15,828.13 kg, which were kept and stored in petitioner’s godown, only on account of not holding valid licence to store/ sale such explosives in huge quantity. Thereafter, one FIR No.385/2023 for offences under Section 286, 336 of IPC and Section 5/9-B of the Explosive Act, 1984 was registered. After investigation in the FIR, charge-sheet has been filed against persons who have concern with the petitioner-firm. The seized articles i.e. Crackers and fireworks have been ordered to be kept under seal of police, in petitioner’s godown itself.
Petitioner-firm through its present proprietor moved an application dated 05.12.2023 invoking provisions of Section 451/457 CrPC, stating inter alia, that the firm is having a licence of storage and sale of fire crackers right from 1997, which has been renewed regularly time to time by the concerned authority upto 31.03.2014 and now the licence has been renewed by the District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur from 09.11.2023 to 31.03.2024. It is stated in the application that petitioner firm is owner of the seized fireworks and crackers, which have worth of about Rs.20 lacs, and same were purchased by petitioner firm through bills/ invoices, after making payment of taxes, GST etc. to the State Government and Central Government. It is stated in the application that conclusion of criminal trial would take its own time and now in the meanwhile, seized fireworks and crackers may be allowed to be returned and permitted to sale by petitioner-firm, subject to furnishing Supurdaginama, Security or Bank Guarantee
[2024:RJ-JP:12444] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1204/2024] to the satisfaction of the Court and since seized articles of fireworks are subject to speedy and natural decay, therefore, if not released forthwith, entire articles would become unusable and turn into waste material, hence, prayer was made to allow the application. It is also stated in the application that except petitioner-firm, there is no other rival claimant, claiming ownership/ delivery of seized fireworks and crackers.
The trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 24.01.2024 and the criminal revision petition filed by petitioner- firm against the order of the trial Court, has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2024, hence, this petition.
The case of prosecution, to seize the fireworks and crackers from petitioner’s godown is only based on having no valid license for storage/ sale of the firework and crackers on 10.10.2023, at the time of inspection, petitioner-firm has placed on record the licence from 10.11.1997 to 31.03.2014 and 09.11.2023 to 31.03.2024 issued by the licensing authority under the relevant provision of the Explosive Act and Rules. To establish its ownership, petitioner-firm has also produced on record the bills/ invoices whereunder such fire crackers were purchased. The fireworks were seized from the godown of petitioner-firm and there is no rival claimant, qua the claim of petitioner-firm, seeking to return seized fireworks. In both impugned orders, the trial Court and the Revisional Court has not disbelieved to the fact that ownership of the seized fireworks lies with petitioner-firm nor this fact has been disputed/ denied by the prosecution. This fact has also not been disputed that petitioner firm has been indulged in the business of selling firecrackers since years. Even if for a
[2024:RJ-JP:12444] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1204/2024] moment and for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that on the date of inspection i.e. 10.10.2023, licence of petitioner-firm was not renewed, then in such eventuality, it is yet to be decided by the trial Court, on conclusion of trial that the person responsible for storing the fireworks and crackers in huge quantity without valid licence can be held guilty for which nature of offences and what kind of punishment can be passed against them. It is not the case of prosecution that any confiscation proceedings in respect of seized fireworks and crackers have been initiated so far.
Counsel for petitioner-firm has placed reliance on the order application under Section 451/ 457 CrPC to return the seized property i.e. fireworks and crackers, which were seized on account of found in possession without any valid licence.
It would not be out of place to refer the off-quoted and celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 451 CrPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. For ready reference, para No.5 and 7 of the judgment is being extracted hereunder:- “5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the injury or trial; (2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary;
[2024:RJ-JP:12444] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1204/2024] (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.
In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely; 1. owner of the articles would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the articles in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the articles is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. this juri iction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with articles.”
The contention of counsel for petitioner that seized articles of fireworks are subject to speedy and natural decay with passage of time, can not be doubted and the possibility may not be ruled out that if the seized crackers and fireworks are allowed to be stored in the godown, where they are kept under seal since 10.10.2023 for a longer period, life span to use such crackers and fireworks would expire and entire seized articles may ruin into waste material. Petitioner-firm is ready and willing to furnish the Bank Guarantee equivalent to the worth of seized firecrackers i.e. about Rs.20 lacs, which may be encashed for realizing the fine/ penalty, if imposed on conclusion of trial finally.
Considering entire facts and circumstances holistically, this Court is of the considered opinion that sustenance of impugned orders dated 12.02.2024 and 24.01.2024 would lead failure of justice and yield no positive consequence, hence, in order to secure ends of justice, it is desirable to allow the application dated 05.12.2023 filed by petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JP:12444] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1204/2024]
As a final result, instant petition succeeds and allowed accordingly.
Both impugned orders dated 12.02.2024 and 24.01.2024 are hereby quashed and the application dated 05.12.2023 filed by petitioner-firm for prayer to release fireworks and crackers and to allow petitioner to sell, is allowed subject to following conditions:- (i) Before issuing direction to de-seal the godown of petitioner and to release the seized fireworks and crackers to petitioner, the trial Court shall ensure that petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee of nationalized Bank to the tune of Rs.20 lacs before the trial Court, which shall not be allowed to be encashed until final conclusion of the present criminal case, arising out of FIR No.385/2023. (ii) In addition, entire seized articles i.e. fireworks and crackers shall be photographed and videographed in such a manner that contents of cartoons are visible with respect to the batch number, nature of the firework and other requisite details, so that such photographs/ video may be marked as evidence during course of trial of the present case before the trial Court. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /960 (*) Reference of name of petitioner and his father i.e. Deepesh Agarwal S/o Ashok Agarwal has been corrected pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2024
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.