LexKHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 606 : 2024 INSC 285 Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 1547 of 2024) 08 April 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant’s vehicle was seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 as the driver of the vehicle was found carrying liquor beyond permissible limit. Appellant approached the High Court by filing Special Criminal Application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking release of the seized vehicle, without first approaching concerned court under Section 451 CrPC. Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the Special Criminal Application filed by the Appellant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Directly invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court for release of seized property – Propriety of: Held: The criminal court, before whom the property in question is sought to be produced, would have the jurisdiction and the power to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of such property or for selling or disposing of such property, having regard to the nature of the property in question, after recording the evidence in that regard – In the instant case, the appellant without approaching the concerned court under Section 451, Cr.P.C, directly approached the High Court by filing Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which could not be said to be the proper course of action for getting the custody of the property – When there is a specific statutory provision contained in the Cr.P.C. empowering the criminal court to pass appropriate order for the proper custody and disposal of the property pending the inquiry or trial, the appellant could not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [2024] 4 S.C.R. 607 Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State of Gujarat seeking release of his vehicle – There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the said vehicle was sought to be produced before the concerned court so as to invoke Section 451 of Cr.P.C or whether such vehicle was forwarded by the police officer to the concerned Magistrate as contemplated in Clause (a) of Section 132 of the said Act – In absence of any such factual material placed on record, it is difficult to release the vehicle in question in favour of the appellant. [Paras 5,6,15 and 16] Use of conjunction “but” in a provision – Implication of: Held: When the conjunction “but” is used in a provision, after the punctuation mark “comma”, it is deemed that such conjunction is used to carve out an exception or proviso to the main provision – Meaning thereby, when the entire provision is divided into two parts by using the punctuation mark “comma” followed by the conjunctive word “but”, the second part is required to be construed as an exception or proviso to the first part. [Para 9] “Confiscation” and “seizure” – Meaning of: Held: As per the Black’s Law Dictionary in the 11th Edition, the word “confiscation” means seizure of property for the public treasury or seizure of property by actual or supposed authority, and the word “seizure” means an act or an instance of taking possession of a person or property by legal right or process – Having regard to the said meanings, it is clear that “seizure” would be a preliminary step that would lead to confiscation of an article seized – The power to seize an article may be exercised by the statutory authorities like police personnel, prohibition officers, revenue authorities etc. in accordance with the concerned Statutes, whereas the power of confiscation is normally exercised by the jurisdictional Courts in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Statutes. [Para 10] Sections 98 and 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 451 of CrPC operate in different fields: Held: On the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section 98 and 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and of Section 451 Cr.PC, it is discernible that all these provisions operate in different fields – Section 98 deals with the Confiscation of the Articles whenever any offence punishable under the Act 608 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports has been committed – The second part of sub-section (2) thereof would come into play when the Prohibition Officer or Police Officer sends the seized article liable
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.