Rajkamal Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Rajkamal Singh, is the power of attorney holder for a goods carrier vehicle (registration no. NL01AD5571) used for transporting Areca Nuts. The vehicle was seized by the police in connection with an alleged offence. The petitioner claims the Areca Nuts, weighing 17,920 kgs and valued at Rs 26,62,464/-, were intended for industrial use (leather, pooja material, Agarbatti) and not human consumption. The police sought information from the GST department, which raised no objection. The petitioner's application for the release of the vehicle and Areca Nuts on supurdnama was initially allowed by the JMFC but later dismissed when the JMFC noted the Areca Nuts were allegedly sub-standard and not human consumable, and proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 were contemplated. A revision petition against this dismissal was also rejected. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Held

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai, emphasizing the need for expeditious and judicious release of seized vehicles to prevent their decay and to avoid the burden of safe custody on the police. The Court noted that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the vehicle and goods to deteriorate at the police station. Crucially, the Court observed that no proceedings had been drawn by any department, nor had any offence been registered against the petitioner, despite the seizure under Section 106 of the BNSS. The lab testing of the seized material had been done, and the petitioner's submission that the item was not for human consumption was considered. The Court directed the release of the vehicle and Areca Nuts in favour of the petitioner on interim custody, subject to conditions including verification of ownership documents, panchnama, photography, a bond for production when required, a personal bond of Rs. 40,00,000/-, equivalent surety, and the petitioner appearing before the concerned authority within one month to provide a sample of the seized article.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 05/12/2024 and 03/01/2025, passed by the JMFC and Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge respectively, rejecting the application for release of the seized vehicle and Areca Nuts on supurdnama, are sustainable in law, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that the goods were not for human consumption and no offence has been registered. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seized consignment of Areca nuts was not for human consumption but for industrial purposes. He contended that no crime had been registered by the respondent authorities regarding the seizure, and the seized goods, being non-human consumable, should not be indefinitely kept at the police station. The petitioner asserted his non-involvement in any crime and sought the release of the vehicle and consignment on supurdnama. Respondent's arguments: The State counsel opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.