Back
Orders of Truck Seized Under
In a significant ruling on the scope of the , the on , directed the of a truck seized for allegedly transporting 8,064 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held that Section 98(2) of the Act is not an on the release of vehicles , and that courts must exercise their powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent unnecessary deterioration of seized property.
A Truckload of Liquor and a Legal Question
The case originated from a seizure during the intervening night of , near Lunawada in Gujarat. Police intercepted an Ashok Leyland truck belonging to , which was allegedly carrying IMFL under the guise of miscellaneous transport goods. Upon opening the rear doors, officers found 8,064 bottles of IMFL—amounting to approximately 22,532.253 litres valued at ₹17.02 lakh—along with edible goods worth ₹98.66 lakh. The driver, Qasid Mohammad Khan, could not produce a pass or permit for transporting the liquor.
A was filed on , under against four accused, including the driver. The truck owner, , moved applications for of the vehicle, but the , the , and the all rejected the pleas, citing the restriction under Section 98(2) of the Act.
The Owner’s Plea and the State’s Objection
Before the , the appellant argued that the truck was a business vehicle, that the owner was not involved in the alleged offence, and that the trial could take four to five years to conclude. It contended that the truck had already been parked at the police station for over a year, deteriorating in value and causing ongoing financial loss. The appellant offered to furnish adequate security for the vehicle’s release.
The State of Gujarat, however, relied on the second part of , which states that where the quantity of seized liquor exceeds the prescribed limit, the conveyance “shall not be released on till the final judgment of the Court.” The State argued that this provision created an absolute bar against .
: Section 98(2) Not an Absolute Bar
Rejecting the State’s contention, the clarified that Section 98(2) must be read harmoniously with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the broader scheme of the Act. The Court noted that the provision was “not happily worded” and that its second part, introduced by a amendment, could not be interpreted as overriding the court’s under Section 451 CrPC to order of property produced during trial.
The Court cited its earlier decision in Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat (2024), which had examined the identical issue and held that the embargo under Section 98(2) operates in a different field—namely, —and does not prevent a criminal court from passing appropriate orders for under Section 451 CrPC.
“Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is not and the Trial Court must exercise its powers under to pass appropriate order on the of the articles produced before the Court,” the Bench observed.
Balancing Evidence and Hardship
The Court emphasized the well-established principle that seized vehicles should not be allowed to languish at police stations for years. Referring to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) and General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010), the Court noted that keeping vehicles in open custody leads to natural decay, theft of parts, and loss of roadworthiness.
The Court found that in the present case, the truck’s continued detention caused “real and ongoing loss of livelihood” to the appellant. It also noted that the had already been filed, and the of the vehicle could be preserved through a detailed , photographs, and videography—as was already done when the edible goods were released earlier.
“It is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period,” the Court quoted from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , adding that courts must dispose of applications under Section 451 CrPC “expeditiously and judiciously.”
with Conditions
The allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and directed the of the truck subject to the following conditions:
- The appellant shall furnish a with security of ₹15,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
- The appellant undertakes to produce the truck before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court as and when directed.
- The appellant shall not alienate or create third-party rights over the vehicle during the pendency of the trial.
- Before handing over custody, the Investigating Officer shall prepare a detailed with photographs and videography of the vehicle’s condition in the presence of the appellant and two independent witnesses.
- If the vehicle is ultimately ordered to be confiscated upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court may proceed against the security furnished or order auction of the vehicle.
- The appellant shall abide by any further conditions imposed by the Trial Court in the interest of the prosecution.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of and would not influence the merits of the .
This ruling reaffirms that statutory restrictions on release of seized property must be balanced against the practical realities of prolonged custody, and that courts retain inherent discretion to prevent hardship to owners while safeguarding the interests of justice.
