M/S ABC Express vs. State of Gujarat

This judgment by the Supreme Court of India clarifies that the police cannot keep a seized vehicle parked indefinitely in a police station during a criminal trial. In this case, a transport truck belonging to M/S ABC Express was caught carrying over 8,000 bottles of illegal liquor in Gujarat. Under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, lower courts and the High Court refused to return the truck to its owner, believing that Section 98(2) of the Act strictly banned releasing any vehicle caught with illegal alcohol. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that keeping a vehicle parked in the open at a police station causes it to decay, lose value, and have its parts stolen, which serves no purpose and destroys a person’s livelihood. The Court emphasized that Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS) gives judges the power to return seized property to its owner on a temporary basis (interim custody). To protect the case, the police can record the vehicle’s condition using photographs, videos, and a written report (panchnama) instead of keeping the physical truck. The Supreme Court ordered the truck to be released to the owner upon furnishing a personal bond of fifteen lakh rupees and agreeing to conditions like not selling the truck. This ruling helps common people protect their commercial vehicles from getting ruined in police custody while waiting years for a trial to finish.

The appellant's truck was seized in Gujarat for carrying 8,064 bottles of illegal liquor hidden under transport goods. The owner applied to get the truck back during the trial, but the lower courts and the High Court refused, saying the law completely barred releasing vehicles caught with liquor.

The Supreme Court set aside the lower court orders and directed the police to return the truck to the owner. The release is subject to a personal bond of Rs. 15,00,000, and conditions that the owner will not sell the truck and will produce it whenever required.

This judgment protects vehicle owners from losing their livelihood when their vehicles are seized by police. It ensures that valuable commercial assets do not rot away in police stations during long-running trials, as photos and videos can be used as evidence instead.