M/S Abc Express vs State Of Gujarat

2026 INSC 940
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4172 OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 10301 OF 2026)

M/S ABC EXPRESS …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Appeal assails the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Criminal Application (Possession
of Muddamal) No. 12264 of 2025 on 09.09.2025. The underlying criminal case
originates from CR No. 11187006250007/2025, registered at PS Lunawada,
District Mahisagar on 05.01.2025 and concerning the transportation of
1
prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor in an Ashok Leyland Truck bearing
2
registration RJ-14-GQ-2269 . However, only a narrow question arises for our
consideration: whether the said truck, after seizure, should be released into the
Signature Not Verified
custody of its owner, the appellant, pending trial, notwithstanding the large
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2026.09.02
16:36:55 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter, ‘ IMFL’
2
Hereinafter, ‘ the subject vehicle ’
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 1 of 11

quantity of liquor found therein and certain provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition
3
Act, 1949 .
3. To put it briefly, the incident and seizure took place during the intervening
night of 04-05.01.2025 when the subject vehicle was found transporting IMFL
under the guise of transport goods while traveling from Modasa towards
Vadodara via Lunawada. The truck was then intercepted, the vehicle’s
registration number was confirmed and the seizure was effected. The driver,
who was alone in the subject vehicle, identified himself as Qasid Mohammad
Khan and when asked about the vehicle, he stated that it contained
miscellaneous goods belonging to the appellant, M/S ABC Express. Upon
opening the rear doors, the Police found plastic bags, plastic boxes and khaki-
coloured cardboard boxes which contained bottles of IMFL. The driver was
unable to produce a pass or permit for transporting the liquor. Therefore, the
truck and driver were taken into Police custody and brought to the Local Crime
Branch office, where the subject vehicle was unloaded and counted in the
presence of the panch witnesses.
4. A huge quantity of IMFL in 8,064 bottles was consequently recovered
which amounted to approximately 22,532.253 litres, with a cumulative value of
Rs. 17,02,656/-. The vehicle also contained edible transport goods of
Rs. 98,66,552/-.

3
Hereinafter, ‘ Prohibition Act ’
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 2 of 11

5. CR No. 11187006250007/2025 was then registered and dispatched to the
concerned Court for offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and
83 of the Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed on 01.03.2025, before the competent Court. Charges were maintained
under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Prohibition Act
against four accused persons including the driver - Qasid Mohammad Khan.

6. The appellant moved an application for release of subject vehicle being
Muddamal Application No. 7 of 2025 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lunawada, seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 497
4
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . The said application came
to be rejected on 22.05.2025 which was assailed before the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahisagar at Lunawada by way of Criminal Revision No. 35/2025. The
learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 07.08.2025 affirmed the order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
7. The appellant thereafter challenged the above order before the High Court
by preferring R/Special Criminal Application (Possession of Muddamal) No.
12264/2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of
the BNSS. The High Court dismissed the revision application. Aggrieved, the
appellant has preferred the present Appeal before this Court.
8. The appellant inter alia contended that the subject vehicle was a
business/transport vehicle seized from the driver and the appellant/owner was

4
Hereinafter, ‘BNSS’
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 3 of 11

not involved in the offense; trial may take around 4-5 years to complete; and the
truck having been parked in Police Station for more than one year, it is
deteriorating and that the appellant is willing to furnish adequate security for
obtaining the interim custody of the subject vehicle.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that in
view of the provisions contained in Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act (as
amended), the subject vehicle cannot be released on bond or surety and the
Courts below and the High Court as well have correctly rejected the appellant’s
prayer for grant of interim custody of the subject vehicle.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it bears importance that
in matter of interim custody, the Courts are necessarily constrained to make
some preliminary determination. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Prohibition Act (as amended) itself expresses what Courts have been reiterating
5
time and again since and in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat
vehicles, prevented from being released back to their owners under Section 98(2),
languish and deteriorate sitting in a police station or court compound until final
disposal of the criminal case. This benefits no one and causes major losses to
the owner.

11. Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is not absolute embargo and the Trial
Court must exercise its powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal

5
2002 INSC 418
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 4 of 11

6
Procedure, 1973 to pass appropriate order on the interim custody of the articles
produced before the Court. We make particular reference to Khengarbhai
7
Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State of Gujarat which arose in an analogous
factual matrix and this Court dealing with an identical contention of statutory
embargo under Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act had examined the issue and
the broader scheme of the Prohibition Act in some detail to held thus:
“ 7. The respondent State has also raised the contention that Section
98(2) of the said Act puts an embargo against release of the vehicle till
the final judgment of the court if the quantity of seized liquor is more
than the prescribed quantity. Since, such contention is often raised,
we deem it necessary to deal with the provisions contained in Section
98 of the Act also. Section 98 reads as under:-
“98. Things liable to confiscation- (1) Whenever any offence
punishable under this Act has been committed,
(a) any intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers, molasses, materials,
still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of which the
offence has been committed,
(b) where, in the case of an offence involving illegal possession, the
offender has in his lawful possession any intoxicant, hemp,
mhowra flowers or molasses other than those in respect of which
an offence under this Act has been committed, the entire stock of
such intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers, or molasses,
(c) where, in the case of an offence of illegal import, export or
transport, the offender has attempted to import, export or transport
any intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers or molasses, in
contravention of the provisions of this Act, rule, regulation or order
or in breach of a condition of a licence, permit, pass or
authorization, the whole quantity of such intoxicant, hemp,
mhowra flowers or molasses which he has attempted to import,
export or transport,
(d) where, in the case of an offence of illegal sale, the offender has
in his lawful possession any intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers or
molasses other than that in respect of which an offence has been
committed, the whole of such other intoxicant, hemp, mhowra
flowers or molasses, shall be confiscated by the order of the Court.
(2) Any receptacle, package or covering in which any of the articles
liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found and the other
contents of such receptacle, package or covering and the animals,

6
Hereinafter, ‘Cr.PC’
7
2024 INSC 285
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 5 of 11

carts, vessels or other conveyances used in, carrying any such article
shall likewise be liable to confiscation by the order of the Court. [but
it shall not be released on bond or surety till the final judgement of the
Court where the quantity of the seized liquor is exceeding the quantity
as may be prescribed by the rules.]”
8. Sub-section (1) of Section 98 deals with the articles liable to
confiscation, whenever any offence punishable under the Act has been
committed. However, sub-section (2) of Section 98 is in two parts. The
first part upto the conjunctive word “but”, states about the
confiscation of the articles like receptacle, package or covering and
about the confiscation of the animals, carts, vessels or any other
conveyances used in carrying any such article, and the second part
starting with the conjunctive word “but” is perceived to be an embargo
against release of the conveyance used for carrying the article liable to
be confiscated if the quantity of the seized liquor carried in such
conveyance is more than the prescribed quantity, till the final
judgment of the court. It may be noted that the second part of sub-
section (2) of Section 98 was incorporated by the Gujarat Act 29 of
2011. However, in our opinion, this incorporation of the second part
by amendment in 2011 is not very happily worded, and therefore, it is
seen as an embargo.
9. When the conjunction “but” is used in a provision, after the
punctuation mark “comma”, it is deemed that such conjunction is
used to carve out an exception or proviso to the main provision.
Meaning thereby, when the entire provision is divided into two parts
by using the punctuation mark “comma” followed by the conjunctive
word “but”, the second part is required to be construed as an exception
or proviso to the first part. However, so far as sub-section (2) of Section
98 is concerned though it is in two parts connected with the
conjunctive word “but”, there is hardly any co-relation between the
first part and the second part thereof. It is difficult to comprehend the
second part of sub-section (2) as an exception or proviso to the first
part thereof. Since it is not happily worded, applying the doctrine of
harmonious construction, we will have to harmonise the provisions
contained therein with the other provisions of the Act and with the
provisions contained in the Cr.P.C.
*
14. Thus, on the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in
Section 98 and 132 of the said Act and of Section 451 Cr.PC, it is
discernible that all these provisions operate in different fields. Section
98 deals with the Confiscation of the Articles whenever any offence
punishable under the Act has been committed. The second part of
sub-section (2) thereof would come into play when the Prohibition
Officer or Police Officer sends the seized article liable to be confiscated
but not required as an evidence, to the Collector as per Clause (b) of
Section 132. However, Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. would come into play
when the article property seized during the course of inquiry or
investigation is produced before the jurisdictional Court as per Clause
(a) of Section 132 and the Court is called upon to pass appropriate
orders for the proper custody of such article/property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or the trial.
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 6 of 11

*
16. It is true that when the property/vehicle is seized during the
course of investigation and the same is produced before the concerned
Criminal Court, it is incumbent on the part of the concerned Court to
pass appropriate orders for keeping the vehicle in proper custody
pending the trial. It is also true that as held by this Court in case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, [2002] Supp. 3 SCR
39 : (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at
the police stations for a long period and it is for the magistrate to pass
appropriate orders for the proper custody of the said such vehicles
during the pendency of the trial. However, as observed earlier, the
appellant without approaching the concerned criminal court under
Section 451 of the Cr.P.C seeking custody of the vehicle in question,
directly approached the High Court by filing Special Criminal
Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which
was not the proper course as adopted by the appellant.”
12. The Courts below have thus seriously erred in taking a narrow view of the
powers under Sections 451, 457, 458 and 459 of the Cr.PC. The legislative
purpose of these provisions is to grant courts broad discretion to assess a variety
of factors and direct the custody or disposal of any property produced during
inquiry or trial. In the leading case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (Smt.)
8
v. State of Mysore and Another , a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held:

“ 4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear
to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an
offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody
of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely
necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a
clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is
that the property should be restored to the original owner after the
necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages
when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it
may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be
necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or
natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may
justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the
interest of justice. …”
(emphasis supplied)

8
(1977) 4 SCC 358
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 7 of 11

13. Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala (supra) had also appositely placed
reliance on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) , wherein this Court had itself
drawn attention to the prevalent problem of large quantities of seized property
being kept at police stations for very long periods without following the proper
procedure. Applications under Section 451 CrPC have to be disposed of
“ expeditiously and judiciously ” keeping in mind: (i) the owner’s interest and
preventing hardship from loss of use or misappropriation; (ii) public/State
interest in avoiding indefinite custody by police & courts; (iii) evidence-
preservation, and using panchanama and photographs where the actual item
need not be produced at trial; and; (iv) safeguarding the integrity of trial by
recording evidence promptly to prevent tampering. A court ought not sit on
seized property for years without cause. This was strongly reaffirmed in General
9
Insurance Council and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , also
relied upon by the appellant, wherein the Court held:
“ 15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles
are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy
substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open,
are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions.
Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept
stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from
the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several
valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are
cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on
road. …”
14. Applying the foregoing to the facts at hand, a cumulative assessment of
the relevant factors certainly weighs in the appellant’s favour. Continued seizure
of the truck causes it real and ongoing loss of livelihood to the appellant. The

9
2010 INSC 225
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 8 of 11

vehicle occupies space in the Police Station and serves no further purpose lying
idle at the Police Station deteriorating and losing value with each passing day.
We note that the chargesheet has already been filed. Any remaining evidentiary
value may be preserved through panchnama, photography and videography, as
was done when the appellant’s edible goods were released pursuant to the earlier
orders of the Court. This Court has repeatedly emphasized the question as to
what purpose is actually served by continued custody and placing the vehicle in
a state of suspended animation.
15. Lastly, on the point of possible confiscation proceedings, we observe that
precedent relied upon by the High Court, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday
10
Singh , dealt with the confiscation regime under the provisions of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 as amended in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh by
Madhya Pradesh Act 25 of 1983, and Section 52-C of which excludes the
jurisdiction of any other “ court, tribunal or authority ” once the concerned
Magistrate is intimated of the confiscation proceedings. The other decision,
11
Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat and Another , arose under
the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 and in fact does not pertain to
confiscation at all. The Prohibition Act contemplates its own procedure for
confiscation which includes notice to the owner, opportunity of hearing, option
to pay in lieu fine, and so on. This cannot stand in the way of the relief sought in
the instant appeal.

10
(2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 473
11
2013 INSC 69
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 9 of 11

16. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the High Court, as
also the Courts below, erred in declining interim release of the vehicle solely on
the strength of Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act without examining either the
settled principles governing interim custody of seized vehicles or the effect of the
amendment to the provision that took effect from 31.07.2024.
17. In view of the above discussion, we allow the Civil Appeal, set aside the
orders passed by the Courts below and direct handover of the interim custody of
the subject vehicle to the appellant subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond, together with
appropriate security, in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(ii) The appellant shall undertake to produce the truck before
concerned Investigating Officer or Trial Court as and when directed;
(iii) The appellant shall not alienate or create a third-party interest over
the subject vehicle during the pendency of the trial;
(iv) Before handing over custody, the Investigating Officer shall prepare
a detailed panchnama of the vehicle, together with photographs and
videography of its condition, in the presence of the appellant
through its authorised representative and two independent
witnesses, and shall place the same on the record of the Trial Court;
(v) In the event the vehicle is ultimately ordered to be confiscated upon
conclusion of the trial or otherwise under Section 98(2), the Trial
Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the security furnished,
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 10 of 11

and/or to pass such further or other orders, including for auction of
the vehicle under the said provision, as may be permissible in law;
and
(vi) The appellant shall abide by all further conditions, if any, that the
Trial Court considers necessary to impose in the interest of the
prosecution and the pending trial.
18. It is clarified that the observations made in this judgement are confined to
the question of interim custody of the vehicle and shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the pending trial, which must proceed
uninfluenced by anything stated herein.

………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)



………………………………………J.
(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR)

NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026.
SLP (CRL.) NO.10301/2026 Page 11 of 11