Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal case registered at PS Lunawada under CR No.11187006250007/2025 for offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The case concerned seizure of an Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration RJ-14-GQ-2269, which was found transporting Indian Made Foreign Liquor without permit. The appellant, M/S ABC Express, was the owner of the truck and sought interim custody of the vehicle pending trial. During the intervening night of 04-05.01.2025, the truck was intercepted while travelling from Modasa towards Vadodara via Lunawada. The driver, Qasid Mohammad Khan, who was alone, stated that the truck contained miscellaneous goods belonging to the appellant. Upon inspection, police found plastic bags, plastic boxes and khaki-coloured cardboard boxes containing bottles of IMFL. The driver could not produce any pass or permit. A total of 8,064 bottles of IMFL, approximately 22,532.253 litres valued at Rs.17,02,656, were recovered. The vehicle also carried edible transport goods worth Rs.98,66,552. The truck and driver were taken into custody. A charge-sheet was filed on 01.03.2025 against four accused persons including the driver. The appellant filed Muddamal Application No.7 of 2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunawada under Section 497 BNSS for interim custody. The application was rejected on 22.05.2025. The Sessions Judge, Mahisagar at Lunawada dismissed Criminal Revision No.35/2025 on 07.08.2025. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed R/Special Criminal Application (Possession of Muddamal) No.12264/2025 on 09.09.2025. Aggrieved, the appellant filed SLP before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and registered Criminal Appeal No.4172 of 2026. The main question was whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 imposed an absolute embargo on release of the seized vehicle pending trial, and whether the trial court had power under Section 451 CrPC to order interim custody despite that provision. The appellant contended that the vehicle was a business/transport vehicle seized from the driver, the owner was not involved in the offence, trial could take 4-5 years, the truck was deteriorating after being parked for over a year, and the appellant was willing to furnish adequate security. The respondent State argued that Section 98(2) (as amended) prohibited release of vehicle on bond or surety and the lower courts correctly rejected the prayer. The Supreme Court noted that in matters of interim custody, courts must make preliminary determination. It referred to Statement of Objects and Reasons and the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat that vehicles left in police stations deteriorate causing loss. The Court held that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo. Relying on Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, the Court explained that Section 98 and Section 132 of the Prohibition Act and Section 451 CrPC operate in different fields. The second part of Section 98(2) inserted by 2011 amendment is not happily worded and must be harmoniously construed. Section 98(2) applies when seized article is sent to Collector under Section 132(b), while Section 451 CrPC applies when property is produced before jurisdictional court. The Court also cited Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (Smt.) v. State of Mysore on the object of CrPC property provisions. The courts below seriously erred in taking a narrow view of powers under Sections 451, 457, 458 and 459 CrPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court must exercise discretion under Section 451 CrPC to pass appropriate orders on interim custody, considering factors such as deterioration and security. The appellant's prayer for release of the vehicle was to be considered afresh.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - Section 451 CrPC - Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 98(2) - Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is not an absolute embargo and the trial court must exercise its powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to pass appropriate orders on interim custody of articles produced before it. The courts below seriously erred in taking a narrow view of powers under Sections 451, 457, 458 and 459 CrPC. Held that the trial court has broad discretion to assess factors like deterioration and security. (Paras 10-12) B) Statutory Interpretation - Harmonious Construction - Interplay between Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 98(2) and 132 and CrPC Section 451 - These provisions operate in different fields; the second part of Section 98(2) inserted by 2011 amendment is not happily worded and must be harmonised with other provisions. Section 98(2) applies when seized article is sent to Collector under Section 132(b), while Section 451 CrPC applies when property is produced before jurisdictional court under Section 132(a). Held that lower courts erred by treating Section 98(2) as an absolute bar. (Paras 11-12) C) Precedent - Custody of Seized Vehicles - Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 - Supreme Court held that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and the magistrate must pass appropriate orders for proper custody during pendency of trial. Applied to prevent deterioration and loss to owner. (Para 10) D) Precedent - Object of CrPC Property Provisions - Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (Smt.) v. State of Mysore and Another - Property seized should not be retained in custody longer than absolutely necessary and should be restored to original owner after necessity ceases. Held that two stages exist for property return. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 imposes an absolute embargo on release of a seized vehicle pending trial, and whether courts have power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant interim custody despite such provision.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute embargo and that the trial court must exercise its powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to pass appropriate orders on interim custody. The courts below seriously erred in taking a narrow view of the powers under Sections 451, 457, 458 and 459 CrPC. The appeal was allowed and the appellant's prayer for interim custody was to be considered afresh by the trial court in light of the principles laid down.
Law Points
- Section 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act
- 1949 not absolute embargo
- trial court must exercise powers under Section 451 CrPC
- harmonious construction
- vehicles should not languish in police stations
- interim custody discretion broad under Sections 451
- 457
- 458
- 459 CrPC
