2015 (2) TMI 779 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of interim custody of vehicle seized - Default in payment of bank loan - Vehicle illegally transporting about 528 quarters of country made liquor, each containing 180 ml - Held that - Finding of guilt has not been given by a competent criminal Court. The seized vehicle is lying in the premises of the police station since 28th May, 2012. If the vehicle is not given in interim custody, then it is likely to suffer damage. In view of the above facts and the law laid down by the Hob ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (2002 (10) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT) the instant case is a fit case, in which interim custody can be given in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. - in case the petitioner furnishes a solvent surety of ₹ 6.5 lacs having a recent and valid solvency certificate alongwith a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, then the seized vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing registration No. CG-10FA-2281 shall be given in interim custody of the petitioner, if he is the registered owner thereof, subject to the certain conditions - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of CrPC against order denying interim custody of seized vehicle under Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1950.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order denying interim custody of a seized vehicle, a Bolero, under Section 457 of CrPC. The vehicle was seized in connection with an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1950, involving illegal transportation of liquor. The applicant, who had purchased the vehicle with a bank loan, argued that the vehicle being in police custody was causing financial strain due to default in loan payments. The state opposed the petition, citing the vehicle's liability for confiscation under the Act, 1950.

The court considered the provisions of the Act, 1950, which allowed for confiscation of the seized vehicle. However, relying on legal precedents such as the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, and the case of Kailash Vs. State of M.P., the court noted that interim custody should be granted to the rightful owner promptly. It emphasized that confiscation should only occur after the accused is found guilty following trial proceedings.

The court observed that no finding of guilt had been established by a competent criminal court in the present case. The vehicle had been in police custody since 2012, raising concerns about potential damage. In light of the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the High Court of M.P., the court deemed it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle under Section 482 of CrPC. The court ordered the petitioner to provide a solvent surety and meet specified conditions to obtain interim custody of the seized vehicle, subject to safeguards to prevent unauthorized transfer or disposal.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to fulfill certain requirements to secure interim custody of the seized vehicle. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of the parties involved while adhering to legal principles governing the custody of seized assets pending trial proceedings.