Perishable seized goods warrant interim release on suitable conditions to prevent deterioration despite pending forensic identification.

On October 10, 2025, police personnel intercepted a vehicle carrying bags of forest produce.

Based on an identification by a Forest Officer as the herb "Meda/Panja," the police seized the consignment and the vehicle under Sections 26, 41, and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, alleging the absence of a valid transit pass.

The applicant, a registered associate of the Herbal Research and Development Institute, contended the material was "Saalam Mishri"—a legally cultivated herb—and that a valid transit pass had been issued for its transportation.

The applicant moved for the release of the seized articles, but the Judicial Magistrate, Purola, rejected the application on December 2, 2025, citing the pending scientific report from the Forest Research Institute (FRI), Dehradun.

The applicant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Magistrate's order and the release of the perishable goods.

1. Whether the seized herbal material, being perishable in nature, should be released to the applicant pending the final scientific examination report and trial.

2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for release of property solely because the scientific report was awaited.

The Court applied the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Sections 26, 41, and 42) regarding the seizure of forest produce.

The Court primarily relied on the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), which mandates that seized property should not be kept in police custody for extended periods to prevent decay, damage, or loss of value, and should instead be released to the rightful claimant on appropriate conditions.

The Court noted that while the identity of the herbs ("Saalam Mishri" vs. "Meda/Panja") remained disputed pending the FRI report, the perishable nature of the herbal produce was uncontested.

The Court reasoned that allowing such material to remain in the police malkhana indefinitely would lead to its deterioration and total loss of commercial value.

Applying the mandate of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court observed that the interests of justice require interim release with safeguards rather than indefinite retention.

Consequently, the Court found that the Magistrate’s refusal to consider the release of the goods on suitable conditions was unsustainable.

The Court emphasized that a detailed inventory and sampling by the Investigating Officer would suffice to preserve evidence for trial while preventing economic waste.

The Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, Purola, to release the seized material to the applicant subject to four conditions: (i) furnishing adequate security/bond equivalent to the assessed value; (ii) preparation of a detailed inventory, photographs, and representative samples by the Investigating Officer; (iii) an undertaking to produce the material if required during trial; and (iv) the release being subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

The Court clarified that these observations do not reflect an opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal case.