Shabi Ali vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court quashed the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Varanasi. The Court directed the release of the seized firecrackers and other articles to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount, subject to reasonable conditions for a fair and just trial. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was the owner of the seized articles and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court explicitly stated that this order would not prejudice the court in deciding the case on its merits. The issue regarding the specific procedural illegality under Rule 16 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, and the perishability of the goods were implicitly addressed by the direction for release, while the discrepancy in licenses was noted but not explicitly ruled upon as the primary ground for the decision.

Facts

The petitioner, Shabi Ali, proprietor of M/s Hindustan Fireworks, challenged orders related to the seizure of fireworks. On November 7, 2020, a team including GST officials, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and police conducted a raid on the petitioner's godown without a valid ground, seizing fireworks. The petitioner argued that the seizure memo was illegal, as the procedure under Rule 16 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, was not followed, and the weight of the fireworks was measured arbitrarily. The petitioner also contended that the seized items were perishable. The recovery was reportedly made from 15 places, while the applicant held only 10 licenses. The impugned orders were passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of fireworks and subsequent orders were illegal due to non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Explosives Rules, 2008? The petitioner argued that the procedure was not followed and the measurement of weight was arbitrary. The revenue did not present specific arguments on this point but opposed the petitioner's submissions. 2. Whether the seized items, being perishable, should be released? The petitioner contended that the items would lose their capability if kept in the open. The revenue opposed this submission. 3. Whether the recovery from 15 places, when the applicant held only 10 licenses, rendered the seizure illegal? The petitioner raised this point implicitly by stating the number of licenses. The revenue highlighted this discrepancy in their opposition.