Boghabhai Balabhai Kodiyatar vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Boghabhai Balabhai Kodiyatar, filed a petition challenging the rejection of his application for the release of seized goods. The goods, identified as 205 tins of rotten jaggery (rotten gur), were seized on 07.08.2023 from his premises following intelligence that he was storing it without a permit. An FIR was lodged on 25.10.2023 under Sections 64, 70A, 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The petitioner claimed the goods were for cattle feed and purchased via invoice from Bharat Traders. His application for release was rejected by the learned trial court and subsequently by the learned Sessions Judge in a revision application. The petitioner argued that the goods were not rotten and confiscation would serve no purpose, relying on Supreme Court judgments regarding the disposal of seized goods.

Held

The Court held that the seized goods, confirmed by the FSL report to be rotten jaggery, are indeed prohibited under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for possessing such a large quantity of rotten jaggery without a pass, permit, or license. Furthermore, the supplier denied selling the goods to the petitioner and lacked the necessary license to store, transport, or sell rotten jaggery. The Court also considered the presumption of guilt under Section 103 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which applies when an accused cannot satisfactorily account for the possession of prohibited items. Given that the goods are confirmed to be rotten jaggery, unfit for human consumption as per Section 2(39A) of the Act, and are found in the conscious possession of the petitioner without authorization, they are liable for confiscation under Section 98(2) of the Act. Consequently, the decisions of the lower courts refusing to release the muddamal goods were found to be correct. The Court found the petitioner's reliance on *Rajendra Prasad* and *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai* to be misplaced in this context. The petition was dismissed, and the rule discharged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized goods, identified as rotten jaggery, are liable for confiscation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, and consequently, whether the petitioner is entitled to their release pending trial? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Sections 64, 70A, 81, 98(2), and 103 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, and the definition of 'rotten gur' under Section 2(39A) of the Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seized goods were not rotten jaggery but jaggery intended for cattle feed, purchased with a valid invoice from Bharat Traders, who possessed a GST number. He argued that he was not engaged in any illegal activity and that confiscating the goods would be purposeless. He relied on the Supreme Court decisions in *Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar* and *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat* to argue that seized goods should not be kept for extended periods. Revenue's arguments: The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was found in possession of rotten jaggery, which is prohibited under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. They asserted that samples were sent to FSL, which confirmed the goods were rotten jaggery, making them liable for confiscation. The State contended that the lower courts correctly rejected the release application.