Supreme Court Rules against Approaching High Court under Articles 226/227 for Vehicle Release without Prior Magistrate Consultation under Section 451
S Jalan & Co
One of the country's finest law firms committed to client satisfaction since 1950 with proven advisory across domains.
In a recent case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, underscored the necessity of adhering to specific legal procedures for the release of seized vehicles. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that resorting to the Hon’ble High Court intervention under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution without prior recourse to the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is not a suitable remedy. The ruling, delivered by Hon’ble Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, clarified that when the Cr.P.C. empowers criminal courts to handle the custody and disposal of seized property during inquiries or trials, approaching the Hon’ble High Court for release via extraordinary jurisdiction is improper. The case in question involved the seizure of a vehicle allegedly transporting an excess quantity of liquor. The appellant, owner of the vehicle, directly approached the High Court under Article 226 without first seeking relief from the magistrate under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
The judgment emphasized that this approach was inappropriate, as Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. governs the proper procedures for custody and disposal of property during legal proceedings. The Court also raised doubts about whether the seized vehicle had been presented before the relevant court. While acknowledging the need for the magistrate to issue appropriate orders for the custody of seized vehicles during trials, the Court cited the precedent set in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 638]. The court stressed the inefficacy of keeping seized vehicles at police stations for extended periods, reiterating the magistrate’s responsibility to ensure proper custody. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, advising the appellant to pursue relief through the appropriate court handling the inquiry or trial involving the seized property or vehicle.