Kahinur Ali And Anr vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the CJM's order. The Court found that it was not yet proven whether the seized rice was stolen or if the vehicle was used for carrying stolen articles. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat, the Court emphasized the power under Section 451 of the CrPC to release seized articles, particularly perishable ones, pending investigation. The Court reasoned that keeping the rice indefinitely would lead to its damage, and the vehicle owner would face financial hardship. Therefore, the Court directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to release the vehicle to its registered owner upon verification of documents and execution of a bond of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Similarly, the seized rice was directed to be released to petitioner No. 2 upon execution of a bond of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The IO was instructed to complete the necessary formalities.

Facts

The petitioners, Kahinur Ali and Ainul Ali, challenged an order by the CJM, Nalbari, which rejected their prayer for the release of seized rice and a vehicle. The vehicle, owned by petitioner No. 1 and carrying 260 bags of rice owned by petitioner No. 2, was apprehended on June 12, 2021, by Mukalmua Police. The driver could not account for the rice, leading to suspicion of it being stolen PDS rice. The vehicle and rice were seized, and a case was registered under Section 380 IPC read with Section 7 of the EC Act. The petitioners sought the release of the seized items, providing GST invoices for the rice (valued at Rs. 2,25,000/-) and vehicle documents. The CJM initially rejected the prayer, citing the need for further investigation and the pending final report on the rice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned CJM, Nalbari, erred in rejecting the prayer for the zimma (release) of the seized rice and vehicle, considering the provisions of Section 451 of the CrPC and the perishable nature of the seized goods? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the seized rice was perishable and would likely be damaged if kept indefinitely. They also argued that the vehicle owner would suffer financial hardship due to pending EMIs if the vehicle was not released. They submitted GST invoices and purchase receipts for the rice, indicating lawful acquisition. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat, which emphasizes the court's power to release seized articles pending investigation, especially perishable items. Revenue's arguments: The State, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, initially submitted that the vehicle was required for further investigation and the final report regarding the rice was pending. Later, it was submitted that the FSL report did not ascertain if the rice was PDS rice and there was no reporting of stolen PDS rice. The State did not present any arguments against the release of the seized items based on the provided documents and the Apex Court's precedent.