Apex Court Overrules High Court, Allows Vehicle Release Under Strict Conditions Amid Prohibition Act Constraints
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted interim custody of a vehicle seized for transporting Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, emphasizing the discretionary power of courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) to balance public interest and the rights of vehicle owners. The vehicle, owned by M/s ABC Express, was previously denied release by the Gujarat High Court due to statutory restrictions under Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that these restrictions are not absolute and can be overridden by the court’s discretion to prevent unnecessary loss and deterioration of property.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar, pointed out that continued seizure causes significant hardship to the owner without serving public or legal purposes. The bench underscored the importance of preserving evidence, public interest, and maintaining trial integrity while deciding on such applications.
This decision arises from an appeal against the Gujarat High Court's order, which upheld lower courts’ decisions to deny interim custody based solely on the statutory embargo. The Supreme Court criticized this narrow interpretation, citing past judgments that stress the need for judicial discretion in interim custody matters.
The case originates from a criminal proceeding where a truck owned by the appellant was seized for transporting a large quantity of IMFL without a permit. Despite the vehicle also carrying legitimate edible goods, the appellant faced prolonged losses due to the vehicle's detention. The Supreme Court's ruling offers relief to the appellant, allowing the vehicle's release under strict conditions, including the furnishing of a security bond and compliance with court directions.
The judgment reiterates the principle that statutory provisions should not be construed in isolation and must be harmonized with procedural laws to uphold justice. It also clarifies that interim custody does not interfere with potential confiscation proceedings, which include procedural safeguards for vehicle owners.
Bottom Line:
Interim custody of seized vehicles under Section 451 of Cr.PC can be granted even in cases involving statutory embargo under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, provided the conditions for safeguarding evidence, public interest, and trial integrity are met.
Statutory provision(s): Section 451 of Cr.PC, Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 116(b), 83 of the Prohibition Act, Sections 497, 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2971813
