Interim custody of seized property requires verification of ownership documentation by the Magistrate, and rejection of custody requests without such verification is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

2. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 is preferred to assail an Order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [S]-II, Kamrup [M], [‘the SDJM[S]’, for short], Guwahati whereby a petition filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of 53 MTS [approx.] of coal seized in connection with Basistha Police Station Case no. 188/2025, has been rejected.

3. On 30.03.2025, upon recovery and seizure of suspected stolen coals after interception of a vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01/DC-3405 [Tata 909], a case, Basistha Police Station Case no. 188/2025 was registered on 30.03.2025 for the offences under Section 61 [2]/305[e], Bharatiya Naya Sanhita [ BNS ], 2023. Subsequently, in the early hours of 09.04.2025, another vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01/QC-9326 [‘the subject-vehicle’] loaded with 53 MTS [approx.] of coals was seized. Sakayet Khan [driver] and Bishnu Mandal [helper] were found to be occupants of the subject-vehicle and they were arrested.

4. It is stated that the petitioner is an incorporated company dealing in coals. On 20.11.2023, it entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with one Dominic Myrthong for purchase of 1490 MTS of coal auctioned by the Meghalaya Government via MSTC. It is asserted that the quantity of coal, 53 MTS [approx.] seized on 09.04.2025 was part of the quantity of coals purchased by the petitioner pursuant to the said Agreement dated 20.11.2024. In support of such claim, the petitioner has annexed the copies of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, E-Way bill, Authorization Certificate, etc. with this petition.

5. When the petition for interim custody of the said seized coal weighing 53 MTS [approx.] was preferred, the learned SDJM [S]-II, Kamrup [M], on 22.05.2025, framing three questions, called for a Report from the I.O. The I.O. was also directed to verify the annexures and to submit a Report of verification along with the replies to the said questions. The I.O. submitted a Report stating that the ownership of the subject-vehicle and the seized coal of 53 MTS [approx.] could not be verified as no person had appeared before him and no documents in support of the ownership of the seized subject-vehicle/coal were submitted before him. On consideration of the said Report, the SDJM [S]-II, Kamrup [M] vide the impugned Order dated 06.06.2025 has rejected the petition for interim custody filed by the petitioner in respect of the seized subject-vehicle. Hence, the criminal revision petition.

6. When this criminal revision petition was listed on 28.07.2025, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had placed a Report dated 24.07.2025 of the I.O., as called for by an earlier Order dated 16.07.2025. In the Report, the I.O. had stated that the case has been investigated and thereafter, a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet no. 278/2025 had been submitted against the apprehended accused persons on 29.06.2025. The Report further mentioned that despite giving ample opportunity, the driver and the helper failed to produce any valid legal documents in support of the coal being transported through the subject-vehicle.

7. There was no reflection in the Order dated 06.06.2025 that the I.O. had verified the documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to its claim of ownership for the seized coal weighing 53 MTS [approx.]. The impugned Order dated 06.06.2025 is found to