The court ruled that the appellant must follow statutory procedures for custody of seized property, specifically under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., rather than invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The appellant, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle being Eicher 10.80 (Blue) bearing no. GJ 05-BT-0899, seized as Muddamal Article in connection with the FIR bearing Criminal No.11200038231465/2023, for the offence Under Section 65- (a)(e),81,98(2),116(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act and U/s 465, 468, 471, 114 of IPC registered with the Pardi Police Station, District Valasad, had filed the Special Criminal Application No.6465 of 2023 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad seeking release of the said vehicle. The said Application having been dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2023, the present Appeal has been filed.

Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA Date: 2024.04.08 18:04:57 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2. In the instant case, it appears that the police personnel when they were on patrolling duty had intercepted the vehicle in question on the basis of a secret information received by them. It was alleged that the driver of the said vehicle was carrying English Liquor (1240.200 litres) worth of rupees 7 lakhs in the said vehicle without any pass or permit.

The said vehicle along with the liquor was seized and the aforestated FIR was registered against the accused Lakhabhai Khengarbhai (the son of the present appellant), and others on 29.04.2023 at the Police Station Pardi, Valasad.

3. The respondent – State of Gujarat by filing the counter-affidavit has contented inter alia that Section 98 (2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Act’) forbids the release of such vehicle till the final judgment of the Court, where the quantity of seized liquor is exceeding the quantity prescribed by the Rules. In the instant case, the seized quantity of liquor was 1240 litres as against the prescribed quantity of 20 litres as per the Notification dated 02.07.2019, and hence the said vehicle was liable for the confiscation and could not be released on bond or surety till the final judgment of the court.

4. At the outset, it may be noted that Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C deals with the disposal of the property. Section 451 thereof pertains to the order to be passed by the Criminal Court for custody and disposal of the property produced before the court pending an inquiry or trial, whereas Section 452 pertains to the order to be passed for the disposal or confiscation of the property at the conclusion of the trial. Section 451 reads as under: -

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. —

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, “property”

includes— (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.”

5. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it clearly transpires that when any property is produced before any criminal court during the course of inquiry or trial, the Court is required to make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or the trial. If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Thus, it is the criminal court, before whom the property in question is sought to be produced, would have the jurisdiction and the power to pass appropr