A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case deals with the legality and propriety of invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the release of a seized vehicle without first approaching the jurisdictional criminal court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The appellant’s vehicle, seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, for carrying a quantity of liquor exceeding the statutory limit, was sought to be released directly through a writ petition. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory provisions under the CrPC mandate the jurisdictional criminal court as the first avenue for relief, reinforcing the principle of judicial hierarchy and statutory remedies. The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was upheld, with the appellant directed to approach the appropriate forum.

Keywords: Writ Jurisdiction, Gujarat Prohibition Act, CrPC Section 451, Judicial Hierarchy, Seizure and Confiscation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State of Gujarat

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1547 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date: April 8, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

vi) Author: Justice Bela M. Trivedi

vii) Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 606; 2024 INSC 285

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 226/227, Constitution of India
• Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 98(2), 116(2), Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949
• Sections 465, 468, 471, 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellant’s vehicle was confiscated under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, as it was discovered transporting liquor exceeding the prescribed limit. The appellant filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking the vehicle’s release but bypassed statutory remedies under Section 451 of the CrPC. The High Court dismissed the application, prompting the present appeal. The case examines the interplay between statutory remedies and constitutional jurisdiction, emphasizing adherence to procedural propriety.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant owned an Eicher 10.80 vehicle, which was seized during a police patrol based on confidential information. The vehicle carried 1240.200 liters of English liquor, valued at ₹7 lakhs, without a valid permit.

2. An FIR (Criminal No. 11200038231465/2023) was registered under various provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act prohibits the release of seized vehicles carrying liquor exceeding the prescribed limit until the final judgment.

4. The appellant bypassed Section 451 of the CrPC and directly approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, which was dismissed.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 be directly invoked for the release of seized property?
2. What is the scope of statutory remedies under Section 451 of the CrPC and its interplay with the Gujarat Prohibition Act?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsel for the appellant argued that the prolonged seizure of the vehicle caused irreparable loss and hardship.

2. It was contended that the vehicle’s release could be granted under the High Court’s extraordinary writ powers, circumventing procedural delays under Section 451 of the CrPC.

3. The appellant argued that the seizure, although lawful, disproportionately burdened the owner, and alternative remedies such as bond-based release should be explored.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The State argued that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act explicitly bars the release of seized vehicles carrying liquor above the prescribed quantity until a final judicial determination.

2. It was contended that Section 451 of the CrPC provides an adequate statutory mechanism for addressing the release of seized property, and the appellant should have pursued this route.

3. The State emphasized that directly invoking constitutional remedies undermines statutory frameworks and procedural integrity.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that statutory provisions under Section 451 of the CrPC must be exhausted before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition, as the appellant failed to utilize the jurisdictional criminal court remedy.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial hierarchy and the principle of avoiding parallel remedies, underscoring that procedural statutes like the CrPC safeguard judicial efficiency.

c. Guidelines

• Constitutional remedies under Articles 226/227 should not bypass statutory alternatives.
• Courts must ensure that statutory provisions under Section 451 of the CrPC are adhered to.
• The release of vehicles under prohibition laws must conform strictly to statutory mandates and procedural requirements.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces procedural discipline, ensuring statutory mechanisms remain primary recourse before extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked. It also upholds the legislative intent of prohibition laws by strictly interpreting release conditions for confiscated vehicles.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 39; (2002) 10 SCC 283

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India, Articles 226/227
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 451
• Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Sections 98(2), 132