The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that holding vehicles seized in criminal cases at police stations for extended periods is pointless [Qadeer Hussain vs. UT of J&K].
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently in the case Qadeer Hussain vs. UT of J&K declared that retaining vehicles seized in criminal cases at police stations for prolonged durations serves no purpose.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasized that courts handling such case-related property should promptly issue orders for its release. They should also take necessary measures such as bonds and security to ensure the vehicle’s return if needed in the future.
The single-judge observed,
“This Court believes that regardless of the circumstances, it would be pointless to detain seized vehicles at police stations for an extended period”
Justice Nargal further mentioned that although the court, under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), lacks the authority to determine property ownership or manage claims, it can still handle the property based on possession.
The Court Stated,
“The role performed by the Court under Section 452 is inherently judicial. When issuing such orders, the Court must duly consider the entitlement claimed by the individual seeking possession of the property,”
During the proceedings, the Court reviewed a petition from a vehicle owner,seeking the reversal of the decision to seize his goods carrier and transfer it to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals (SPCA) under Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules 2017.
Also Read: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Issues Guidelines on Arrests in Criminal Cases
The vehicle seized in relation to a case filed in 2023 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code for disobeying orders issued by a public servant, and under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for mistreating animals.
Following Qadeer Hussain’s admission of guilt to the charges against him, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Poonch ordered the forfeiture of his vehicle and its transfer to the SPCA.
The CJM’s decision was affirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge Poonch, prompting Hussain to seek relief from the High Court quashing the orders and regain possession of his Tata Goods Carrier. Justice Nargal initially observed that the petitioner had lost his vehicle due to the incorrect application of Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules 2017.
The Court pointed out that the Rule solely addresses the condition of animals after legal proceedings and should not have been used to seize the vehicle.
The Court Stated,
“The order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, is flawed,”
After reviewing the legal provisions, the Court observed that Section 452 of the CrPC permits the disposal of case property upon conclusion of the trial. However, it observed that the CJM’s order did not make any reference to this provision. As a result, the Court invalidated both the CJM’s order and the order issued by the appellate court.
Regarding the order from the appellate authority, the Court remarked that it overlooked the fact that the CJM did not invoke Section 452 of the CrPC during the vehicle’s cessation or forfeiture.
The Court Stated,
“The appellate authority, instead of nullifying the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order to that extent, upheld it by relying on Section 452 of the CrPC to rectify the error made by the CJM,”
Given this context, the Court granted the petition and returned the matter to the CJM for reconsideration.