Md. Rajibul Islam vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The Court found sufficient merit in the petitioner's arguments, particularly concerning the perishable nature of the seized betel nuts and the fact that they were not required for the purpose of investigation. The Court noted that over 128 days had elapsed since the seizure, and there was no allegation of theft of the betel nuts themselves. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Deshai vs. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to prevent loss to the owner and avoid the burden of safe custody for the police. The Court directed the release of the seized betel nuts to the petitioner upon his executing a bond of Rs. 4,50,000/ to the satisfaction of the learned court below, granting the court liberty to impose any further conditions deemed fit. The issue of GST bills and the Agriculture Department's report, while considered by the Magistrate, were not determinative in light of the perishable nature and lack of necessity for investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Rajibul Islam, filed a revision petition challenging an order dated 09.06.2022 by the Judicial Magistrate, Bokajan, which rejected his petition for the custody of 26 bags of betel nuts. The betel nuts, weighing 1936 kg, were seized by the Khatkhati Police on 14.03.2022 in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No. 27/2022, under sections 379/411 IPC, as the petitioner could not produce supporting documents. The petitioner argued that the seized betel nuts were perishable, had been in police custody for over 128 days, were not required for investigation, and that he was the sole claimant, having purchased them locally. He expressed readiness to pay taxes. The respondents, the State of Assam and others, did not file any objections, but the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the seized betel nuts were not produced with proper GST bills and that a report from the Agriculture Department regarding their fitness for consumption was awaited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in rejecting the petitioner's petition for custody of the seized betel nuts, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the delay in investigation, under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seized betel nuts were perishable and would suffer natural decay, leading to a loss of Rs. 4,50,000/. He argued that the betel nuts had been in police custody for over 128 days and were not required for the investigation, as indicated by the Investigating Officer's report. He claimed to be the legal owner, having purchased them locally, and was willing to pay any applicable taxes. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambala Deshai vs. State of Gujarat and a previous High Court case, M/S Kumar Traders And Company & Anr. vs. The State of Assam & 4 Ors., to support his claim for expeditious release of the seized goods. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the impugned order was not infirm or illegal and required no interference. They contended that the petitioner failed to produce any documents, specifically GST bills, to establish ownership before the learned court below or the Investigating Officer. They also mentioned the non-receipt of a report from the Agriculture Department regarding the fitness of the betel nuts for human consumption.