Nurul Hussain @ Guddu vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the lower courts' concurrent findings, based on the case diary, that the petitioner failed to produce valid documents regarding the ownership and source of the scrap material at the time of seizure were not perverse, illegal, or jurisdictional errors. The revisional court had also found that the subsequently produced bills and documents did not clearly describe or match the seized articles, and the investigation was incomplete. While acknowledging the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai that seized articles should not remain in police custody indefinitely, the Court noted this principle is not absolute. Granting interim custody is discretionary and requires the claimant to establish a prima facie right and ensure no adverse effect on the investigation. Since the petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish ownership and identity, and the inquiry was ongoing, the lower courts were justified in declining interim custody. The Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to renew his prayer if he could produce satisfactory documents or if circumstances changed.

Facts

The petitioner, Nurul Hussain, proprietor of M/s Kai Metals, a registered GST holder dealing in scrap material, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He challenged the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, which rejected his application for interim custody (Supurdnama) of scrap material seized by police on January 29, 2023. The police seized the scrap from his warehouse on suspicion of it being stolen property. The petitioner claimed lawful purchase supported by bills and registers, while the State contended that the produced documents did not correspond to the seized material, and the investigation was ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for interim custody of the seized scrap material under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., considering the petitioner's claim of lawful business and the potential depreciation of the stock-in-trade (turning on Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that both lower courts failed to appreciate his lawful business and that prolonged retention of scrap would lead to deterioration and loss of value. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, emphasizing that seized property should not be kept indefinitely in police custody. He argued that he had produced bills and registers, and there was no evidence of the scrap being stolen, asserting that the lower courts adopted an overly technical approach. Revenue/State's arguments: The State supported the impugned orders, stating that the petitioner failed to produce valid documents at the time of seizure. The documents subsequently produced did not match the seized material, and the investigation into the source and ownership was incomplete. The State argued that releasing the property would prejudice the inquiry and frustrate the seizure's purpose.