The case in hand deals with the seizure of the vehicle by the Police which was allegedly carrying a large quantity of liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity. The Appellant claiming the ownership of the vehicle directly approached the High Court by exercising its writ jurisdiction without approaching the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the application filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Gujarat High Court, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Whether approaching the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the release of the seized vehicle would be a proper remedy without approaching the Magistrate under Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure?

The Court observed that “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.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that approaching the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the release of the seized vehicle would not be a proper remedy without approaching the Magistrate under Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure.