Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Seizure Truck’s Interim Release To Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order the 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 truck was ordered to be released to the petitioner upon furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and undertaking to produce it when directed; the order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of an ICER truck seized in connection with an FIR registered at Sola High Court Police Station for an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, after the driver was found transporting liquor without a pass or permit.

¶ 2–3

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner; the vehicle was financed by MAS Financial Services Limited, which had issued a No Objection Certificate permitting its release to him.

¶ 5

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release.

¶ 6

02Issues

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

¶ 6, 9

ii.Whether the truck should be released to the petitioner, and, if so, on what safeguards and conditions.

¶ 5, 8–12

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were invoked as the bases for the High Court’s extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction.

¶ 2

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and that they may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

¶ 8

The judgment also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s ownership claim and the financier’s NOC, along with the risk that a seized vehicle could deteriorate if left in police custody.

¶ 5, 8

It held that the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express.

¶ 9

Accordingly, it ordered release subject to a solvent surety, restrictions on transfer, an obligation to produce the vehicle when directed, and measures to document the vehicle’s condition.

¶ 11–13