Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, claimed ownership of a vehicle (Eicher 10.80 bearing no. GJ 05-BT-0899) that was seized in connection with an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and IPC. The vehicle was intercepted by police on 29.04.2023 while carrying 1240.200 litres of English liquor worth Rs. 7 lakhs without a pass or permit. The appellant filed Special Criminal Application No.6465 of 2023 before the Gujarat High Court under Article 226/227 seeking release of the vehicle, but the High Court dismissed it on 08.06.2023. The State contended that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act forbids release of such vehicle till final judgment if the seized liquor quantity exceeds the prescribed limit (20 litres). The Supreme Court held that the appellant should have first approached the criminal court under Section 451 CrPC for interim custody, as that provision empowers the court to pass orders for proper custody of property pending trial. The Court also interpreted Section 98(2) of the Act, noting that the second part (added by amendment in 2011) is not an absolute embargo but must be harmoniously construed with Section 451 CrPC. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the appellant to approach the jurisdictional criminal court under Section 451 CrPC, which shall consider the application for release of the vehicle on appropriate conditions, including furnishing a bond and surety, and ensuring the vehicle is not alienated or used for illegal activities. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Interim Custody of Property - Section 451 CrPC - The criminal court before whom property is produced has jurisdiction to pass orders for proper custody pending trial; the High Court should not have dismissed the petition without considering this remedy (Paras 5-6). B) Gujarat Prohibition Act - Confiscation of Conveyance - Section 98(2) - The second part of Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo but must be harmoniously construed with Section 451 CrPC; the vehicle can be released on appropriate conditions pending trial (Paras 7-9). C) Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious Construction - Doctrine of Harmonious Construction - The court applied the doctrine to reconcile the seemingly conflicting provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Section 451 CrPC (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's application for release of the seized vehicle under Article 226/227 of the Constitution without considering the alternative remedy under Section 451 CrPC, and whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act creates an absolute embargo against release of the vehicle pending trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the appellant to approach the jurisdictional criminal court under Section 451 CrPC for release of the vehicle. The criminal court shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders, including conditions such as furnishing a bond and surety, and ensuring the vehicle is not alienated or used for illegal activities.
Law Points
- Section 451 CrPC empowers criminal courts to order interim custody of property pending trial
- Section 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar against release of conveyance
- High Court should not have dismissed petition without considering alternative remedy under Section 451 CrPC
