Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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,

 

Similar News