Mohitram Rakhwani vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2022. The Court held that given the nature of the seized articles as fireworks/crackers, it is not desirable to keep them in the custody of the Court or the police, as they may become useless due to chemical reactions or improper storage, potentially leading to hazards. The Court found it relevant that the applicant is involved in the business of crackers, holds a valid license, and has deposited GST for the seized articles. Applying the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Court directed the trial court to release the seized articles to the applicant on furnishing a Superdginama of Rs. 10,00,000/-, after retaining two samples of each item. The trial court was empowered to impose necessary terms and conditions, including ensuring adequate fire safety measures and storage away from residential and commercial areas.

Facts

The applicant, Mohitram Rakhwani, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. This order had dismissed the applicant's criminal revision petition, which in turn affirmed a JMFC order dated 19.10.2022. The JMFC had dismissed the applicant's application for interim custody of seized articles, stating the matter was under investigation. The police had registered a case under Section 285 of the IPC and seized 650 units of flammable explosive substances, including crackers, from a godown. The applicant claimed to be a licensed cracker dealer and stated that GST had been deposited for the seized items. He argued that the crackers would become obsolete or useless if not sold within the prescribed time or if stored improperly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim custody of the seized fireworks and crackers on supurdginama, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the applicant's business and GST compliance, despite the ongoing investigation under Section 285 of the IPC? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and principles of custody of seized goods). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he holds a valid license for the cracker business and has deposited GST on the seized articles. He contended that the seized crackers would become obsolete if not sold promptly and would deteriorate if stored improperly, leading to irreparable loss. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer for interim custody.