KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA V. STATE OF GUJARAT

INTRODUCTION:

In this case, the appellant claimed possession of a car that had been seized in connection with an inquiry filed under several sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code, and he requested its release. The car was allegedly stopped while carrying a significant quantity of English booze without the required licenses. The appellant filed an appeal even though the High Court denied their plea. The state of Gujarat, the respondent, contended that if the amount of liquor confiscated exceeds the permitted limit, Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act prohibits the release of such vehicles until the final verdict.

Since the Criminal Procedure Code gives criminal courts authority over the possession and disposition of such property, the appellant’s direct application to the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution was ruled to be invalid. Although the appeal was denied, the appellant was permitted to file a case with the relevant court if the car was produced during the trial or investigation.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The case concerns the appellant’s efforts to obtain the release of an Eicher 10.80 (Blue) that was confiscated and registered with the number GJ 05-BT-0899. In response to a First Information Report (FIR) submitted by certain provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code, this car was seized as a Muddamal Article (IPC). 
2. Police officers on patrol stopped the car after receiving confidential information, which resulted in the encounter that led to the seizure. The driver of the vehicle was accused of transporting English liquor (1240.200 liters) without the required permit or pass, for a total estimated value of rupees 7 lakhs. As so, on April 29, 2023, the car and the alcohol were seized. 
3. The appellant filed a Special Criminal Application No. 6465 of 2023 with the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad, claiming ownership of the car, and asking for the seizure to be released. On June 8, 2023, the High Court issued an order dismissing this application. The appellant proceeded by filing an appeal.

ISSUES:

• Whether the appellant should have first approached the concerned criminal court under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for custody of the seized property.
• Whether the appellant’s direct petition to the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was the correct procedural step.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

1. The appellant claims that the High Court erred in dismissing their Special Criminal Application because it was filed under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution, which gives the High Court the authority to grant writs for the enforcement of basic rights or any other reason.
2. The appellant contends that rather than enduring the drawn-out process of contacting the relevant criminal court under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), they were entitled to approach the High Court directly under Article 226/227, especially in light of the urgency and significance of the matter.
3. The appellant argues that because of significant ambiguities and inconsistencies in its wording and interpretation, the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act—which the respondent cites as justification for the vehicle’s continuing detention—should not apply in this particular situation. They contend that since the clause does not expressly forbid the vehicle’s release, it should not be prevented from returning.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent argues that the Gujarat Prohibition Act’s Section 98(2) expressly forbids the vehicle’s release before the court’s final ruling, particularly in cases where the amount of seized alcohol surpasses the allowed limit. They contend that the statute’s wording is unambiguous and allows no space for interpretation.
2. The respondent claims that the appellant should have requested the vehicle’s release via the proper legal procedures, which include utilizing Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to get in touch with the relevant criminal court. They argue that by appealing directly to the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution, the appellant disregarded the standard legal process.
3. The respondent highlights how crucial it is to enforce prohibition rules and stop the unlawful shipment of alcohol. They contend that releasing the car would jeopardize law enforcement operations and establish a bad precedent that would be harmful to the general welfare.

JUDGMENT:

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the lower court to deny the appellant’s plea to be released from the custody of the impounded car. It concluded that Section 451 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code should have been used to get in touch with the appropriate criminal court in place of the appellant’s direct appeal to the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution. The respondent’s claim was upheld by the court based on Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. This provision prohibits the vehicle’s release before the court’s final verdict, particularly in situations where the seized alcohol exceeds the permissible limit. As a result, the court decided that releasing the vehicle would risk public safety.

ANALYSIS:

The decision underscores the need to abide by the procedural rules and legislative restrictions, stressing that the right legal process needs to be followed when filing a relief request. Through its denial of the appeal, the court upholds the rule that direct recourse to the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution is inappropriate when specific statutory provisions, such as Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, specify the procedure for requesting custody of seized property. Furthermore, as a means of striking a balance between the rights of individuals and the interests of law enforcement, the court interpreted Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, highlighting the legislative intent to restrict the release of seized vehicles, particularly in situations where the quantity of prohibited alcohol exceeds prescribed limits.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the court denied the appellant’s appeal, which sought the release of a car that had been impounded and was allegedly used to carry alcohol against the law. The ruling emphasizes how crucial it is to adhere to the law, stressing that when statutory rules specify the process for requesting custody of seized property, going to the High Court under Article 226/227 is inappropriate. The court upholds the prohibitions on releasing confiscated automobiles, particularly in cases where the quantity of alcohol seized exceeds authorized limits, by interpreting key statutes in a way that strikes a balance between the objectives of law enforcement and individual rights.

REFERENCES: 

1. SCC ONLINE
2. https://www.supremecourtcases.com/khengarbhai-lakhabhai-dambhala-v-state-of-gujarat/ 
3. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17465 
4. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64873e92afbb5e393d208334 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin