2022 (5) TMI 1052 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of seized goods - muddamal base oil - prayer to release base oil has not been considered - offence under Sections 285, 278 and 114 IPC and Section 3, 7 and 11 of the Essential Commodities Act or not - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the findings of the Courts below, this court is of view that, it is settled law that, the articles seized by the police, may be released to the person, who in the opinion of the Court, is lawfully entitled to claim, after preparing detailed panchnama of such articles as well as photographs of such articles and security bond. In the facts of the present case, after following procedure, the seized base oil, imported by the petitioner herein and after clearance of the port authority, it was about to reach at the destination. Pursuant to the FIR, samples were taken from the seized oil. The petitioner herein is authorized person of the company. In this background facts, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have not properly exercised their powers judiciously. It is required to be considered that, the expeditious and judicious disposal of the case property would ensure that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused. Court or police would not require to keep the article in safe custody, as it would save the cost of storage etc. The petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders rejecting release of seized base oil.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an authorized person of a company, challenged orders rejecting the release of seized base oil imported after completing mandatory processes. The goods were transported to a storage facility but were detained by the police for alleged violations, leading to seizure under various sections of the law. The petitioner sought release of the base oil, arguing compliance with all legal requirements and highlighting the adverse impact on business due to the seizure.

The petitioner's counsel argued that while the trial court released the tankers, the base oil's release was not considered. It was emphasized that the petitioner had lawfully imported the base oil, and its continued detention would result in financial losses and spoilage. The petitioner requested the release of the seized base oil on any terms deemed appropriate.

On the other hand, the State vehemently opposed the petition, asserting that the lower courts correctly rejected the release applications and contending against interference by the higher court.

Upon review of the lower courts' findings and considering relevant legal precedents, the High Court observed that seized articles should be released to the lawful claimant promptly to prevent loss of value or damage. Citing a Supreme Court case, the court emphasized the need for expeditious handling of case property to prevent deterioration and unnecessary storage costs. In this case, the base oil was lawfully imported, and samples were taken post-seizure. The court found that the lower courts did not judiciously exercise their powers and directed the release of the seized base oil to the petitioner under specified conditions.

As a result, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and ordered the release of the seized base oil to the petitioner. The conditions for release included furnishing a surety, preparing a detailed panchnama, adherence to applicable laws, and allowing the use of samples and photographs as trial evidence.