MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Property Seized in Criminal Investigations Requires Proper Custodial Orders from the Concerned Criminal Court: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Vehicle Seizure Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India today provided clarity on the proper legal procedures for the custody and disposal of property seized in connection with criminal investigations, particularly under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal delivered the judgment in the case of Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala vs The State of Gujarat.

The appeal concerned the seizure and potential release of a vehicle under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, with a focus on the application of Sections 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) regarding property seized in connection with a large quantity of illicit liquor.

The appellant, claiming ownership of the seized vehicle, approached the High Court seeking its release. The vehicle had been seized carrying a significant quantity of illicit liquor. The High Court dismissed the application, prompting the current appeal. The main issue revolved around whether the Special Criminal Application filed by the appellant was an appropriate legal recourse for the release of the seized vehicle.

Proper Procedure for Seized Property: The Court emphasized that under Section 451, Cr.P.C., it is the responsibility of the criminal court to decide on the proper custody of seized property during investigation or trial.

Analysis of Gujarat Prohibition Act: The Court delved into Sections 98 and 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, distinguishing between the powers of authorized officers and courts in the confiscation and seizure of property.

Harmonious Construction of Section 98(2): The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to resolve ambiguity in Section 98(2) of the Act, reconciling it with the Cr.P.C. and other provisions of the Act.

Role of Criminal Courts Under Cr.P.C: The Supreme Court directed that the proper course of action in cases involving the custody of seized property is to approach the appropriate criminal court under Section 451, Cr.P.C.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. The appellant was directed to seek remedy under Section 451, Cr.P.C. at the concerned criminal court for the release of the vehicle.

Date of Decision: April 8, 2024.

Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala vs The State of Gujarat,

 

Latest Legal News