Sub-Inspector ordered to pay ₹5,000 after admitting he illegally locked a transporter’s premises without legal authority

The petitioner, proprietor of a parcel-transport business, challenged the police’s locking and sealing of his godown after registering a case under Section 9-B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, following the discovery of more than 150 cracker boxes on the premises.

The police removed the seal and returned the premises to the petitioner on 11 September 2026, but retained the boxes, which had been seized under a mahazar, produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sivakasi, and registered as case property in P.R. No. 113 of 2026.

The petitioner then sought return of the boxes in the writ petition.

1. Whether the police had legal authority to lock and seal the petitioner’s premises.

2. Whether the High Court could direct return of the seized cracker boxes after they had been produced before and registered as case property by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

3. Whether the petitioner’s application for interim custody of the case property should be considered by the Magistrate within a specified period.

The Court treated the absence of any identified legal provision or court order authorising the police to lock the premises as rendering that action improper.

Once seized property is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and registered as case property, the affected person must seek its interim custody from that court; the High Court should not direct the police to return property that is subject to the Magistrate’s custody and orders.

The Court referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (identified in the order as Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) as the provision under which the petitioner could apply for interim custody.

It distinguished the cited decisions concerning release of cracker boxes because the order did not establish that those properties had been seized during investigation and registered as case property before a Magistrate.

The police acknowledged that the premises had been locked without authority in law or an order of a court or higher authority, and the premises had already been returned to the petitioner.

However, the cracker boxes had been seized under a mahazar, produced before the Magistrate, and assigned a property-registration number; their interim custody was therefore for the Magistrate to determine, not the High Court to bypass by directing the police to hand them over.

The Court accordingly directed the petitioner to apply to the Magistrate, who could assess the application on its merits.

The petitioner was directed to apply to the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sivakasi, for return of the property, and the Magistrate was directed to decide the application within one week of filing.

The Court accepted the Sub-Inspector’s apology for the unauthorised locking and directed him to pay costs of ₹5,000 to the specified Siddha clinic account by 11 October 2026, with proof to be produced on 12 October 2026; the payment was not to affect his service record or result in departmental proceedings.