Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Md. Rajibul Islam, challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Bokajan, rejecting his application seeking interim custody (Zimma) of 26 bags of betel nuts weighing 1,936 kg and one mobile phone seized by the police in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No. 27/2022 registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The goods were seized during a naka checking as the petitioner could not produce supporting documents at the time of seizure. The petitioner contended that the betel nuts had been purchased locally from Zutovi Village, Dimapur, Nagaland, and were being transported to Rupahi. He further submitted that the seized goods were lying in the police station for more than 128 days, were perishable in nature, and were no longer required for investigation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized betel nuts under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  2. Whether the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the Zimma application merely because GST bills and ownership documents were not produced.
  3. Whether perishable goods not required for investigation should remain in police custody pending trial.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner claimed lawful ownership of the seized betel nuts, stating that they had been purchased from Zutovi Village in Dimapur, Nagaland.
  • The Investigating Officer had already reported that the seized goods were not required for the purpose of investigation.
  • The betel nuts were highly perishable and had remained in police custody for over 128 days, causing deterioration and financial loss estimated at ₹4,50,000.
  • The petitioner expressed willingness to pay any applicable tax if required.
  • Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, which mandates prompt release of seized property under Section 451 CrPC to avoid unnecessary damage and depreciation.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The State argued that the order of the Magistrate did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
  • It was submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce ownership documents or GST bills before the Investigating Officer and the trial court.
  • The prosecution relied upon the Investigating Officer's status report to contend that ownership of the seized goods had not been established.

Court Order / Findings

The Gauhati High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order. The Court observed that:

  • The Investigating Officer himself had confirmed that the seized betel nuts were not required for further investigation.
  • Betel nuts are perishable goods and prolonged retention in police custody would result in deterioration and financial loss.
  • The Magistrate failed to apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which requires courts to exercise powers under Section 451 CrPC expeditiously to prevent wastage and safeguard the interests of the owner.
  • The petitioner had also produced supporting certificates from the local village authorities regarding purchase of the betel nuts and expressed willingness to comply with tax requirements.
  • Accordingly, the Court directed the release of the seized betel nuts to the petitioner upon execution of a bond of ₹4,50,000, while granting liberty to the trial court to impose appropriate conditions. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

Important Clarification

The judgment reiterates that Section 451 CrPC should be invoked promptly for release of seized property, particularly perishable goods, when such property is no longer required for investigation. The absence of GST bills or complete ownership documents alone cannot justify indefinite retention of perishable goods in police custody if the circumstances otherwise warrant interim release and adequate safeguards can be imposed by the court.

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785403716_2399compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.