LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/khengarbhai-lakhabhai-dambhala-vs-the-state-of-gujarat-20240408/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala vs The State of Gujarat

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
8 April 2024
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 1547 of 2024
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal
Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 606 : 2024 INSC 285
Acts & Sections
Constitution CrPC IPC
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 4 S.C.R. 606 : 2024 INSC 285
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.
Headnote

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 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:

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

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 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 to be confiscated but not required as an evidence, to the Collector as per Clause (b) of Section 132 – However, Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. would come into play when the article property seized during the course of inquiry or investigation is produced before the jurisdictional Court as per Clause (a) of Section 132 and the Court is called upon to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of such article/property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or the trial. [Paras 9 and 14]

Keywords: Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India · Section 451 of Cr.P.C · Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 · Specific statutory provision · Seizure and confiscation of property · Mudammal article · Implication of the word “but” · Harmonious construction

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. The appellant, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle being Eicher 10.80 (Blue) bearing no. GJ 05-BT-0899, seized as Muddamal Article in connection with the FIR bearing Criminal No.11200038231465/2023, for the offence Under Section 65-(a) (e),81,98(2),116(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act and U/s 465, 468, 471, 114 of IPC registered with the Pardi Police Station, District Valasad, had filed the Special Criminal Application No.6465 of 2023 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad seeking release of the said vehicle. The said Application having been dismissed
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →