Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 02 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – M/S ABC Express; Respondent – State of Gujarat.
  • Underlying Criminal Case: CR No. 11187006250007/2025 registered at PS Lunawada, District Mahisagar on 05 January 2025, concerning illegal transport of prohibited Indian‑Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in an Ashok Leyland truck (registration RJ‑14‑GQ‑2269).
  • Seizure Details: On the night of 04‑05 January 2025, the truck was intercepted while traveling Modasa → Vadodara via Lunawada. Driver Qasid Mohammad Khan claimed the cargo belonged to ABC Express. Police uncovered plastic bags and cardboard boxes containing 8,064 bottles of IMFL (≈ 22,532.253 litres) valued at Rs. 17,02,656/‑; edible goods worth Rs. 98,66,552/‑ were also seized.
  • Charges: Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949; charge‑sheet filed on 01 March 2025 against four accused including the driver.
  • Procedural History:
  • Application for interim release of the vehicle (Muddamal Application No. 7/2025) under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, rejected on 22 May 2025 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunawada.
  • Revision (Criminal Revision No. 35/2025) before Sessions Judge upheld the rejection on 07 August 2025.
  • Special Criminal Application (Possession of Muddamal) No. 12264/2025 filed before the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226/227 and Section 528 of the BNSS; High Court dismissed the application.
  • Present appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 4172 of 2026) filed before this Court.
  • Arguments:
  • Appellant argued the truck is a business vehicle, owner not involved in the offence, trial may take 4‑5 years, vehicle deteriorates in police custody, and offered to furnish security.
  • Respondent argued Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act imposes an absolute embargo on release of the conveyance when seized liquor exceeds prescribed quantity.
  • Judicial Reasoning:
  • The Court examined the wording of Section 98(2), noting the “but” clause creates an embargo but is not absolute; the amendment (Gujarat Act 29 of 2011) is poorly worded.
  • Cited precedents: Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat (2024), Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (Smt.) v. State of Mysore (1977), and General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) emphasizing that seized property should not remain in police custody indefinitely and courts have discretion under Sections 451, 457‑459 of the Cr.P.C.
  • Noted that the appellant bypassed the proper route of seeking interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by directly approaching the High Court.
  • Concluded that lower courts erred by relying solely on Section 98(2) without applying the broader discretion afforded by the Cr.P.C. and the amendment effective 31 July 2024.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Appeal is allowed; orders of the lower courts are set aside.
  • The vehicle is to be handed over to the appellant in interim custody subject to the following conditions:

1. Appellant must furnish a personal bond and appropriate security of Rs. 15,00,000/‑ to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

2. Appellant must produce the truck before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court as directed.

3. The truck may not be alienated or transferred to any third party during the trial.

4. Before custody is transferred, the Investigating Officer shall prepare a detailed panchnama, photographs and videography of the vehicle’s condition, in the presence of the appellant’s authorized representative and two independent witnesses, and place it on the Trial Court record.

5. If the vehicle is ultimately ordered confiscated under Section 98(2), the Trial Court may forfeit the security and may order auction of the vehicle as permissible.

6. The appellant must comply with any further conditions the Trial Court deems necessary.

  • The Court clarified that these observations are confined to interim custody and do not prejudice the merits of the pending trial.

Topics: Interim Custody, Prohibition Act, Vehicle Seizure