The State Of Assam And Anr vs. Lalhruaizela

Held

The Court held that the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, erred in setting aside the CJM's order and directing the release of the seized areca nuts. The Court found substance in the petitioners' submission that the Sessions Judge misconstrued the law regarding the application of Section 451 CrPC during the investigation stage. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court clarified that Section 451 CrPC can only be exercised during inquiry and trial, not during the investigation phase. The Court also noted that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously held that releasing seized property during investigation, before charge sheet filing, is premature and not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Judge were set aside. Considering the perishable nature of the areca nuts and the elapsed time since seizure, the Court directed that the seized areca nuts be put to auction, with the sale proceeds deposited in the government treasury, to be disposed of subject to the outcome of the criminal case. The Court also emphasized the need for wide publicity in auctioning the goods.

Facts

The State of Assam and Sri Mayank Kumar, Superintendent of Railway Police, challenged a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. The Sessions Judge had set aside an order by the CJM, Hailakandi, which had dismissed a zimma petition. The CJM had refused to release 530 bags of seized areca nuts. The Sessions Judge directed the release of the areca nuts upon the execution of a bond for Rs. 1,20,75,000/-. The seizure occurred on April 13, 2022, following a tip-off about illegally loaded Burmese betel nuts from Bairabi Railway Station. Documents accompanying the areca nuts were suspected to be fabricated. The respondent, Lalhruaizela, claimed ownership and stated the nuts were of local origin, purchased from a society in Mizoram. The investigation involved reports from the Superintendent of Taxes, District Agricultural Officer, and Food Analyst. The Food Analyst reported the nuts were not fit for human consumption.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, erred in setting aside the order of the CJM, Hailakandi, and directing the release of seized areca nuts during the investigation stage, contrary to Supreme Court pronouncements on the application of Section 451 CrPC. (Section 451 CrPC, Section 2(h) CrPC, Section 2(g) CrPC) 2. Whether the seized areca nuts, found to be not fit for human consumption by the Food Analyst and suspected to be of foreign origin, should be released to the respondent, potentially causing detriment to public health and facilitating smuggling. Petitioner's arguments: The Sessions Judge misconstrued the law regarding the grant of zimma during investigation. The seized betel nuts are unfit for human consumption, and their release would be detrimental to public health. The respondent failed to produce documents proving ownership, and the seized nuts are of Burmese origin. Payment of taxes and obtaining e-way bills do not prove ownership. The District Agricultural Officer's report indicating non-local origin was ignored. Respondent's arguments: The Sessions Judge rightly granted zimma based on authentic documents. The seized areca nuts are raw and require processing before market release, making the petitioners' apprehension unfounded. The Sessions Judge's order is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat. The seized nuts are perishable and will be damaged if not released, causing irreparable loss. The respondent collected the nuts from local farmers and produced relevant documents. The petitioners' actions are contrary to their own SOP.