1. Seizure of sandalwood — Dispute over legality of seizure — Pending criminal proceedings — Writ petition for return of seized property. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1324
2000(7) Supreme 696
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. Misra & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
S.P., Forest Cell, Adyar & Anr. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Kannans Co. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4525 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11755 of 1999)
Decided on 11-8-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
Goods (sandalwood) seized and detained in a criminal case cannot be ordered to be released by the High Court in writ proceedings adjudicating disputed question of fact; criminal court alone would be competent to adjudicate and decide issue under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 451-Constitution of India-Article 226-Return of seized goods-Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226-Sandalwood seized from respondent-Two Criminal cases pending against respondent-Writ petition for release of sandalwood-High Court ordering return of sandalwood holding that seizure was without ascertaining fact that respondent possessed same legally-Untenable-High Court committed grave error in recording finding as to disputed question of fact in Article 226 proceedings-Proper course for respondent was to move criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C.-Criminal Court alone would be competent to decide and adjudicate issue. (Paras 4 and 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent contended that the seizure was illegal as the sandalwood was held under a valid license and was not part of the pending criminal cases. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. High Court erred by deciding disputed questions of fact and removing property from the Criminal Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 4 )
4. Custody of property pending trial is governed by Section 451 CrPC; Criminal Courts, not High Courts in writ jurisdiction, adjudicate such disputes. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court orders quashed — Seized goods to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can a High Court under Article 226 decide disputed questions of fact regarding the legality of seizure of property subject to criminal proceedings?
No. The court held that the High Court committed an error by adjudicating disputed questions of fact and taking property outside the reach of the Criminal Court through its writ jurisdiction. (Para 4 )
7. What is the proper legal remedy for seeking the custody of property seized in connection with a criminal case?
The proper course is to move the Criminal Court under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the court to order the custody and disposal of property pending trial. (Para 4 )
8. Which court is competent to decide whether seized goods are the subject matter of a pending criminal case?
The Criminal Court alone is competent to adjudicate and decide whether seized goods are the property in a pending criminal case, not the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order, dated 2nd September, 1992 of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12601 of 1992 filed by the respondent before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The writ petition was allowed with the direction to the appellant to return the sandalwood, seized on 30th August, 1992 from the godown of the respondent-company at Alamathi village, Thiruvallur Road, Red Hills, Madras-52. The respondent alleged in the writ petition that 8.508 tons sandalwood is seized by the present appellant illegally, without ascertaining true facts as the sandalwood was validly with the respondent in terms of the licence and in accordance with law. The respondent referred to the two criminal cases, i.e., Criminal Case Nos. 9 and 10 of 1992, one relating to the seizure of the lorry and the other to the seizure of the sandalwood. It seems the High Court went too far in writ jurisdiction to draw its inference on a subject matter of criminal cases in which the seized sandalwood is the subject matter of issue. The High Court records the following findings :
"It is true that two criminal cases in Crime Nos. 9 and 10 of 1992 are pending against the petitioner company. But that does not mean that the sandalwood products seized in this case to the extent of 8.508 tons is part and parcel of the materials of those criminal cases. Simply because there is no official seal/manner mark or any mark on the sandalwood products seized from the petitioner s godown, it cannot be said that the sandalwood products seized is illicitly purchased or smuggled."
4. High Court committed error in adjudicating the question, whether the sandalwood was legally or illegally seized or was or was not in wrongful possession or whether the seized sandalwood is or is not subject matter of criminal cases. There did not exist any evidence on record to decide or conclude any such above finding. Aggrieved by this judgment of learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was preferred by the appellant which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this, present appeal is filed. As we have observed, the High Court committed error in going into the questions and recording findings which it should not have done in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not only High Court has decided disputed questions of fact but through its order has taken the property outside the reach of the Criminal Court. Accordingly, the said impugned orders are unsustainable in law. In fact, the proper course open to the respondent was to move the Criminal Court, under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of the custody of the seized sandalwood. Admitted position is, the seized goods have been produced before the concerned Criminal Court, then for the custody of the same, Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the proper course. This Section empowers the Criminal Court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trial. Even if there be a dispute as in the present case, whether the seized good is the property in the pending criminal case, it is that Criminal Court alone would be competent to adjudicate and decide the issue but not the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. In view of this, we find the High Court has committed error in issuing the writ and granting the said relief to the respondent. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment in writ appeal are hereby quashed. As the seized good is with respondent No. 1, he will produce the same before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai within three weeks from today.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is allowed. Costs on the parties.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
***************
