IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
State of Assam - Appellant
Versus
Lalhruaizela - Respondent
Crl. Pet. No. 597 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Sec. 482 - Challenge to judgment and order under Ss. 120(B)/420/471/413/34 IPC - Sec. 451 CrPC - Nevada Properties Private Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 20 SCC 119 - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. PRK Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2019 SCC Online Del 8226 - Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1 - Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290 - The court discussed the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment and order under Ss. 120(B)/420/471/413/34 IPC and the applicability of Sec. 451 CrPC. The court analyzed the difference between 'investigation' and 'inquiry' and the power of the Criminal Court to release seized articles during investigation. The judgment and order under challenge failed to withstand the test of propriety and correctness and were set aside. The seized areca nuts were ordered to be put to auction, and the sale proceeds were to be deposited in the Government treasury pending the outcome of the criminal case.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Assam challenged the judgment and order setting aside the order for the release of seized betel nuts. The betel nuts were seized based on suspicion of illegal loading and transportation. The respondent claimed the seized betel nuts were of local origin, but the investigating officer found discrepancies in the documents and suspected an organized network involved in smuggling.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment and order under challenge failed to withstand the test of propriety and correctness and were set aside. The seized areca nuts were ordered to be put to auction, and the sale proceeds were to be deposited in the Government treasury pending the outcome of the criminal case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the judgment and order under challenge, the difference between 'investigation' and 'inquiry', and the power of the Criminal Court to release seized articles during investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the difference between 'investigation' and 'inquiry' and the applicability of Sec. 451 CrPC. It also relied on the doctrine of binding precedent and previous case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and order, ordered the seized areca nuts to be put to auction, and directed the sale proceeds to be deposited in the Government treasury pending the outcome of the criminal case.
JUDGMENT :
Robin Phukan, J.
Heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, being assisted by Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. In this petition under Sec. 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner i.e. the State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Home and Political Department and Sri Mayank Kumar, Superintendent of Railway Police, Pandu, Assam has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dtd. 23/5/2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Crl. Revision No.38/2022. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order dtd. 23/5/2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi has set aside the order dtd. 6/5/2022, passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi, in Badarpur GRPS Case No.33/2022, under Ss. 120(B)/420/471/413/34 IPC and directed to release 530 bags of seized betel nuts (areca nuts), in favour of the revisionist, on executing a bond of Rs.1, 20, 75, 000.00 (Rupees one crore twenty lac seventy five thousand) only.
3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under :
4. Thereafter notice under Sec. 91 CrPC was issued to the Station Master, Bairabi and on being produced by him, several documents were seized on 16/4/2022 and after checking of the aforesaid documents, it was found that the seized areca nuts were loaded by the respondent, namely, Lalhruaizela in the name of a farm namely, Lalhruaizela Timber. Thereafter several notices were issued under Sec. 41(A)/91 CrPC to the respondent through the Officer-in-Charge of Bairabi P.S., Mizoram on 18/4/2022 and 26/4/2022 to produce all documents related to seized areca nuts for examination. But, the respondent neither appeared nor produced any documents for examination and did not cooperate with the investigation. Thereafter on 19/4/2022, the I.O. has written a letter to the Superintendent of Taxes, Hailakandi requesting him to furnish a report regarding genuineness of seized documents under Sec. 91 of the CrPC and by the letter dtd. 20/4/2022, request was also made to the District Agricultural Officer, Hailakandi to ascertain whether the seized areca nuts were of local or foreign origin and the approximate market value of the same and on 21/4/2022, the I.O. has written another letter to the Food Analyst, Govt. of Assam to examine whether the seized areca nuts were fit for human consumption and whether the same are subject to speedy natural decay, and thereafter, the District Agricultural Officer, Hailakandi, vide his letter dtd. 22/4/2022, informed that as per physical inspection done by the District Level Expert Committee, the sample of areca nuts seems to be not o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Cr.P.C. 451 and 457 at different stages of investigation, enquiry, and trial, and the availability of an alternative remedy un....
Section 123 of Act, 1962 provides that where any goods included under Sub-section 2 of Section 123 are seized on basis of reasonable belief that same are smuggled goods, then burden of proving that t....
Point of Law : Ownership of betel nuts could not be established by producing the GST Bills by the petitioner and also due to non receipt of report from Agriculture Department.
The burden of proof for non-notified goods under the Customs Act lies with the Customs Department to establish smuggling, which must be supported by cogent evidence.
The court emphasized that interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner, and the availability of alternative remedy should be considered before....
Food safety authority's clearance via NOCs after rigorous testing binds customs authorities, precluding arbitrary re-testing, seizure of compliant imported food goods without justification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.