Selvakumar vs. The District Superintendent Of Police

Held

The Court found that the police had committed a patent error by locking and sealing the petitioner's premises without legal authority or adherence to due process. The respondents' counsel conceded that the police were not in a position to show any legal provision authorizing such action. Consequently, the police were directed to immediately remove the lock and seal from the petitioner's premises. The major prayer of the petitioner for the removal of the lock and seal was substantially complied with as the police desealed and handed over vacant possession of the premises on September 11, 2026. Regarding the seized 150 boxes of crackers, the Court held that they were case property and could not be handed over directly. The petitioner was directed to approach the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sivakasi, by filing an appropriate application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 497 of BNSS) for the return of the property. The Magistrate was directed to dispose of this application within one week of filing. The Court also noted an undertaking affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who expressed regret for the illegal sealing and tendered an unconditional apology. The Court accepted the apology and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the Sub-Inspector, to be paid to a specific Siddha Clinic, with the assurance that this would not affect his service record.

Facts

The petitioner, Selvakumar, owner of Aruna Lorry Service, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of a lock and seal imposed on his transport godown. The respondents, the District Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, had locked the premises on August 8, 2026, after registering a criminal case (Crime No. 380 of 2026) under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, for allegedly storing over 150 boxes of crackers without a license. The petitioner contended that the sealing was illegal, done without notice, and violated natural justice. He had submitted a representation on August 14, 2026, which remained unaddressed, prompting the writ petition. The police claimed the premises were sealed to secure the seized cracker boxes as there was no space in the police station or court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police had the legal authority to lock and seal the petitioner's business premises under the circumstances, and if not, whether this action violated the principles of natural justice. (Turning on the powers of police in relation to seizure and property under criminal law). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of the seized 150 boxes of crackers, and if so, through what procedure. Petitioner's arguments: The police action of locking and sealing the premises was illegal and arbitrary, conducted without providing any opportunity of being heard or issuing a written notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on previous High Court decisions that found similar sealing of business premises by police to be illegal. Respondents' arguments: The police locked and sealed the premises as a consequence of registering a case under the Explosives Act, 1884, due to the alleged illegal storage of cracker boxes. The sealing was done to secure the seized property, which was treated as case property, and there was no space to store it elsewhere. The respondents initially could not show any specific legal provision authorizing the police to lock the premises.