Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Seizure Auto-Rickshaw Released To Owner, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody On Conditions

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the Renault auto-rickshaw, subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until conclusion of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further stated that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Renault auto-rickshaw financed by Prakash Finance Company, sought its release after police seized it in connection with an alleged Gujarat Prohibition Act offence involving liquor transported without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–3

The financier had issued a no-objection certificate for release.

pp. 1–3

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the petitioner, as the vehicle’s registered owner and with the financier’s NOC, was entitled to release subject to safeguards for the vehicle’s production and preservation.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case, while Section 528 of the BNSS was invoked as part of the Court’s jurisdiction.

pp. 2–4

Section 497 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits appropriate orders for interim custody of property during an inquiry or trial.

pp. 2–4

As explained in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle.

pp. 2–4

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, supports prompt release of vehicles against appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, rather than allowing them to deteriorate in police custody.

pp. 2–4

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.

pp. 2–4

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

The vehicle was seized in a prohibition case, but the confiscation provisions did not prevent the Court from ordering interim custody: the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to direct release, and M/s ABC Express confirmed that Section 98(2) was not an absolute embargo.

pp. 2–4

Consistent with Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court considered it appropriate to avoid prolonged police custody and deterioration of the vehicle.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC supported release, while conditions requiring security, preservation and production of the vehicle protected the proceedings.

pp. 2–4