Tag Archives: proceduralcorrectness

Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 1547 of 2024.

Date: April 08, 2024.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. Pankaj Mithal, J. Bela M. Trivedi.

 

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle Eicher 10.80 (Blue) bearing registration number GJ 05-BT-0899, filed a Special Criminal Application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, seeking the release of the said vehicle. The vehicle was seized as “Muddamal Article” in connection with an FIR registered against the appellant’s son, Lakhabhai Khengarbhai, and others at the Pardi Police Station, District Valsad, for offenses under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the police, they intercepted the vehicle based on a secret information while on patrol duty. It was alleged that the driver of the vehicle was carrying 1240.200 litres of English Liquor worth Rs. 7 lakhs without any valid permit or pass. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s application, leading to the filing of the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

Legal Issues

1. Whether the appellant should have approached the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC instead of invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for seeking the release of the seized vehicle?
2. Whether the interpretation and scope of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, particularly the embargo against the release of a conveyance used for carrying liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity until the final judgment of the court was accurate?

Legal Provisions

1. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the order to be passed by the Criminal Court for the custody and disposal of property produced before the court pending an inquiry or trial.
2. Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949: This section pertains to the articles liable to confiscation whenever an offense punishable under the Act has been committed. Subsection (2) deals with the confiscation of receptacles, packages, coverings, animals, carts, vessels, or other conveyances used in carrying such articles.
3. Section 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949: This section lays down the procedure to be followed after the seizure of articles by the Prohibition Officer or the Police Officer.

Sure, here’s an expanded version with more details on the contentions of the petitioner (appellant) and respondent (State of Gujarat):

Contentions of the Petitioner (Appellant):

The appellant invoked the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, filing a Special Criminal Application seeking the release of the seized vehicle. He argued that the High Court had the power to grant such relief under its writ jurisdiction. He challenged the legality and propriety of the seizure of the vehicle by the police. He contended that the seizure was arbitrary and without following due process of law. The appellant claimed to be the rightful owner of the seized vehicle and asserted his legal right to possess and use the vehicle for lawful purposes.

The primary relief sought by the appellant was the release of the seized vehicle, either unconditionally or subject to appropriate conditions or furnishing bonds/sureties as deemed fit by the High Court.

Contentions of the Respondent (State of Gujarat):

The respondent heavily relied on Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which prohibits the release of a vehicle used for carrying liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity until the final judgment of the court. In the present case, the seized quantity of 1240 litres exceeded the prescribed limit of 20 litres. The respondent opposed the release of the seized vehicle, arguing that it would be in contravention of Section 98(2) of the Act, which mandates that such vehicles cannot be released on bond or surety until the final judgment.

The respondent justified the seizure of the vehicle by the police, contending that it was carried out based on credible information and in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and other applicable laws. He argued that the seized vehicle should remain in the custody of the appropriate authorities until the final disposal of the case, as per the legal provisions governing such situations.

The respondent challenged the appellant’s invocation of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, contending that there were specific statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which should have been exhausted first.

Analysis of the Judgement:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order. They observed that the appellant should have approached the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the CrPC for seeking the custody of the seized vehicle instead of invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not happily worded, and there is a lack of co-relation between the first and second parts of the sub-section. Applying the doctrine of harmonious construction, the Court harmonized the provisions with other relevant provisions of the Act and the CrPC.

The Court distinguished between the powers of “seizure” and “confiscation.” Seizure is a preliminary step leading to confiscation, and the power to seize is exercised by statutory authorities like the police or prohibition officers, while the power of confiscation is typically exercised by the jurisdictional courts. The Court clarified that Section 98 deals with the confiscation of articles, while Section 132 deals with the procedure to be followed after the seizure of articles by the Prohibition Officer or Police Officer. It observed that there was no factual material on record to suggest whether the seized vehicle was produced before the concerned court to invoke Section 451 of the CrPC or forwarded by the police officer to the concerned Magistrate as per Section 132(a) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The Court rightly emphasized the importance of following the proper statutory procedure laid down in Section 451 of the CrPC for seeking the custody of seized property from the concerned criminal court. Invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution was deemed inappropriate in this case, as there was a specific statutory provision available. The Court’s analysis of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and its harmonious interpretation with other provisions is commendable. The Court acknowledged the lack of clarity in the wording of Section 98(2) and applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to resolve any ambiguity or inconsistency. The Court also relied on the precedent set in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, wherein it was held that it is incumbent upon the magistrate to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of seized vehicles during the pendency of the trial, as keeping them at police stations for an extended period serves no purpose.

 

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat provides valuable guidance on the proper procedure to be followed for seeking the custody of seized property in cases involving offenses under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The Court clarified the interplay between the relevant provisions of the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory procedure laid down in Section 451 of the CrPC. While the Court dismissed the present appeal due to the appellant’s failure to approach the concerned criminal court, it left the door open for the appellant to approach the appropriate court where the seized vehicle is sought to be produced during the inquiry or trial.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.