Harendrabhai Manshukhbhai Kamdar (Proprietor Of Kamdar Marketing) vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of the lower courts. The Court held that the muddamal goods (25 MTs Bid) could be released by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, subject to appropriate conditions. The reasoning was based on the principle that seized goods should not be kept indefinitely, leading to deterioration, as observed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat. The Court also referred to decisions of coordinate benches that had released vehicles and goods in similar circumstances. The operative directions were to release the 25 MTs of Bid upon the petitioner furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,10,000/- and a solvent surety of equivalent amount. Additionally, the petitioner was to retain 100 KGs of the Bid as a sample until the trial concluded and produce it as directed by the court below. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Harendrabhai Mansukhbhai Kamdar, proprietor of Kamdar Marketing, filed a writ petition seeking the release of 25 MTs of Bid seized in connection with a Prohibition Act offence. The goods were seized from a truck carrying liquor. The petitioner's application for release of the goods was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chotila, and subsequently, a Criminal Revision Application was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar. The petitioner argued that the goods would deteriorate if not released and relied on coordinate bench orders. The State conceded that the detention was justified by statute but offered no comment on the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, leaving it to the Court's discretion. The Court noted the petitioner's GST registration as a proprietary firm.

Key Issues

1. Whether the muddamal goods (25 MTs Bid) seized in connection with offences under the Prohibition Act should be released to the petitioner, the owner, despite liquor being found in the same vehicle. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the goods would deteriorate if not released, rendering them unusable after the trial. They relied on several orders passed by coordinate benches of the High Court dealing with the release of muddamal in prohibition offence cases. The petitioner sought the quashing of the lower courts' orders and the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for the release of the goods. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the detention of the muddamal was justified by statutory provisions and that the lower courts' refusal to release the goods was in accordance with the law. However, regarding the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and the reliance on coordinate bench decisions, the State offered no comment and left the matter to the discretion of the Court.