# Birender Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1049
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 22859 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/birender-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-53287
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 482, 451, 457, 458 & 459
- United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 -
Sections 60, 63, 72 & 73 - U.P. Motor
Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 - Sections 22,2
& 158 - U.P. Motor Taxation Rules, 1998 -
Rule 9(a), 19-A, - UP Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 203, 203-A - UP Police Act. -
Section 23 & 29 - U.P. Cow Slaughter Act,
1945 - Section - 5-A(7) - U.P. Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2021 - Rule
72(6)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - FIR
- registered on a complaint of an Excise
Inspector - raid & seizure - of illicit liquor, cash,
and a vehicle under the U.P. Excise Act - owner
of vehicle moved an application for release -
rejected, due to the pending trial - Revision
Petition - rejected - hence present application -
court finds that, this incident highlights a
broader systemic issue in U.P., where over
1,13,000 vehicles remain impounded due to
inconsistent judicial practices, lack of centralized
tracking, and bureaucratic delays - These
inefficiencies not only burden courts and
departments but also risk criminal misuse and
economic loss - To address this, the Court
initiated a comprehensive reform process,
directing
the
formation
of
a
high-level
Coordination Committee to develop structured
guidelines for timely disposal of seized vehicles -
Recommendations include creating a centralized
digital
dashboard
linked
with
CCTNS,
establishing district-level vehicle yards with QR
tracking, prioritizing auctions of unclaimed
vehicles, and enforcing accountability among
officials - The Court emphasized that vehicles,
as national assets, must not be allowed to
deteriorate due to procedural inertia and called
for a pragmatic, development-oriented judicial
approach that balances statutory compliance
with economic utility and property rights -
application disposed of with direction to the
Registrar (Compliance) to transmit this to the
Chief Secretary, Govt. of UP for its effective
compliance within a period of Six months. (Para
28, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,646 of 50,362. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39646 for what follows._

5 All. Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1049
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1049
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 22859 of
2024
And
Application U/S 482 No. 18870 of 2024
And
Application U/S 482 No. 29462 of 2024

Birender Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pankaj Sharma, Sri Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 482, 451, 457, 458 & 459
- United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 -
Sections 60, 63, 72 & 73 - U.P. Motor
Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 - Sections 22,2
& 158 - U.P. Motor Taxation Rules, 1998 -
Rule 9(a), 19-A, - UP Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 203, 203-A - UP Police Act. -
Section 23 & 29 - U.P. Cow Slaughter Act,
1945 - Section - 5-A(7) - U.P. Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2021 - Rule
72(6)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - FIR
- registered on a complaint of an Excise
Inspector - raid & seizure - of illicit liquor, cash,
and a vehicle under the U.P. Excise Act - owner
of vehicle moved an application for release -
rejected, due to the pending trial - Revision
Petition - rejected - hence present application -
court finds that, this incident highlights a
broader systemic issue in U.P., where over
1,13,000 vehicles remain impounded due to
inconsistent judicial practices, lack of centralized
tracking, and bureaucratic delays - These
inefficiencies not only burden courts and
departments but also risk criminal misuse and
economic loss - To address this, the Court
initiated a comprehensive reform process,
directing
the
formation
of
a
high-level
Coordination Committee to develop structured
guidelines for timely disposal of seized vehicles -
Recommendations include creating a centralized
digital
dashboard
linked
with
CCTNS,
establishing district-level vehicle yards with QR
tracking, prioritizing auctions of unclaimed
vehicles, and enforcing accountability among
officials - The Court emphasized that vehicles,
as national assets, must not be allowed to
deteriorate due to procedural inertia and called
for a pragmatic, development-oriented judicial
approach that balances statutory compliance
with economic utility and property rights -
application disposed of with direction to the
Registrar (Compliance) to transmit this to the
Chief Secretary, Govt. of UP for its effective
compliance within a period of Six months. (Para
28, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prem Swamy Vs St. of U.P. - Reported in
1997 Allahabad Criminal Cases (Suppl.) 99

2. Dhirendra Singh Thapa Vs St. of U.P. & ors.-
Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2016

3. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs St. of Guj. -
(2002) 10 SCC 283,
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondents, and perused the record.

2. In the present case, an FIR was
registered by the police on the complaint of
Excise Inspector. Following the registration
of the FIR, a huge quantity of illicit liquor
and Rs.14,03,550/- was recovered, and also
a Mahindra Pick UP vehicle, bearing
Registration
No. UP-16-JT-5779,
was
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seized. The owner of the vehicle filed an
application before the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, seeking
release of the vehicle. Accordingly, a
response was called from the District
Magistrate, who responded by stating that
since the matter is pending trial, the vehicle
may not be released. Based on this
response, the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate rejected the application for
release of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the
rejection
order
dated
10.5.2024,
the
applicant filed a Revision Petition bearing
no.174 of 2024, before the learned District
Judge, Aligarh. The counsel for the
applicant placed reliance upon Prem
Swamy v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and
Dhirendra Singh Thapa v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others2. However, the learned
District Judge distinguished the applicants'
case from those cited cases, noting that the
referred cases involved the seizure of
vehicles under the NDPS Act, whereas the
applicants' case involved a violation of the
provisions of the U.P. Excise Act and
thereby rejected the revision petition.

3.
The
learned
District
Judge
overlooked a well-known and widely
referred judgment by the Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat3, which addresses the detailed
procedure for release of vehicles and goods
seized by investigating agencies. Instead,
the learned District Judge decided the
revision petition by distinguishing the
petitioner's case from the case decided by
the High Court in 1997. It is worth noting
that in Prem Swamy's case (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the
revision petition and directed the release of
the seized vehicle on Supardari to the
owner, in a case where the vehicle was
confiscated in violation of the provisions of
the U.P. Excise Act, 1910.

4. For clarity, the Supreme Court in
the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case (supra)
held that the powers under Section 451
Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously,
as this would serve several purposes: (i) the
owner of the article would not suffer due to
it
remaining
unused
or
being
misappropriated; (ii) the court or police
would not need to keep the article in safe
custody; and (iii) if a proper Panchnama is
prepared before handing over possession of
the article, it can be used as evidence
during the trial instead of requiring the
article's production. If necessary, evidence
could also be recorded, detailing the nature
of the property.

5. In compliance with the order dated
05.08.2024, the learned District Judge,
Aligarh,
submitted
a
report
dated
16.08.2024. Upon examining the report, it
is observed that Criminal Revision No. 174
of 2024, filed by the applicant Birendra
Singh, was allowed, and the order dated
10.05.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aligarh, in Misc. Application
No. 98/11/2024, arising out of Case Crime
No. 123/2024, registered under Sections
60, 63, and 72 of the Excise Act, P.S.
Tappal, District Aligarh, has been set aside.
The matter was remanded back to the
learned
Magistrate
to
reconsider
the
applicant's application afresh for the
release of the vehicle in accordance with
the procedure laid down by the Supreme
Court in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
case (supra). The issue has been resolved
in this particular case; however, the
underlying situation remains unchanged
and is expected to persist in other similar
cases.

6. Every day, this Court is burdened
with a good number of applications seeking
the release of vehicles seized/confiscated
5 All. Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1051
by the police or various government
departments for violations of laws such as
the N.D.P.S. Act, Gangsters Act, Cow
Slaughter Act, Excise Act, Mines and
Minerals Act, and M.V. Act and the
offences registered under B.N.S., 2023.
Although
different
authorities
are
empowered to seize and release vehicles
under the respective statutes and rules
framed there under, the general procedure
for their release lies under Section 451
Cr.P.C. It has been observed that a
significant number of vehicles across Uttar
Pradesh are left outside police stations in a
state
of
disrepair-
non-functional,
dismantled, inoperable, reduced to mere
chassis, rusted, and unused.

7. There are various reasons for the
accumulation of these vehicles at police
stations, including: (i) the owner may not
have filed a release application; (ii) the
courts may have rejected the release
applications; (iii) the owner may lack
sufficient funds to produce surety bonds
against the release order; (iv) vehicles may
be held as evidence in ongoing trials,
preventing their disposal until the trial
concludes; (v) bureaucratic inefficiencies
or a lack of streamlined processes for
seizure, confiscation, auctioning, scrapping,
or disposing of unusable vehicles; (vi)
prolonged exposure to harsh weather
conditions leading to rusting and further
degradation; and (vii) neglect or oversight
within the police administration. These
reasons are illustrative, not exhaustive.

8. There is no uniform or consistent
approach adopted by the courts in dealing
with
vehicle
release
applications.
Additionally, the State Government lacks a
centralized place to store the vehicles or
agency to document and reflect details of
vehicles seized and confiscated by the
police and other departments. This is
crucial because, in many cases, vehicles
released by the court are repeatedly used by
criminals, merely by altering number plates
and chassis numbers.

9. The guidelines set by the Supreme
Court in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
case (supra) appear to be regularly ignored
by
the
police,
District
Magistrates,
Commissioners of Police, and the learned
trial courts. However, unfortunately, the
courts have also not maintained consistency
or uniformity in the law regarding the
release of vehicles.

10. In this context, notices were issued
to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home),
Director General of Police (U.P.), and the
Principal Secretary (Transport) to propose
effective
measures
for
reducing
the
congestion of seized vehicles at police
stations. They were directed to consult with
all District Magistrates and concerned
officials from the Excise, Forest, Mines,
and other departments before submitting
their suggestions to this Court. Similarly,
the D.G.P., U.P., was instructed to hold
consultations
with
field-level
officers,
including Senior Superintendents of Police
and
Police
Commissioners.
These
proposals may include: (i) formulation of
uniform guidelines with defined timelines
for auctioning confiscated vehicles; (ii)
standardized
procedures
for
handling
unclaimed vehicles; (iii) regular inventory
and audit mechanisms for all seized
vehicles;
(iv)
mandatory
video
and
photographic documentation at the time of
seizure;
and
(v)
enforcement
of
accountability
mechanisms
for
Investigating
Officers
and
seizing/confiscating authorities for noncompliance with judicial directions and
Supreme Court guidelines.
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The Chief Secretary, U.P., was
also directed to submit an affidavit
proposing the development of a singlewindow web portal, enabling all concerned
departments- Police, Transport, Forest,
Mining, and Excise- to upload and share
real-time data on stolen, seized, or
confiscated vehicles involved in criminal
cases.

12. In compliance with the various
orders, passed by this Court, the Home,
Transport,
and
Excise
Departments
submitted
their
respective
affidavits.
Additionally, inputs were also received
from the learned District Judges to
facilitate a comprehensive approach to the
issue.

13.
Pursuant
to
order
dated
20.08.2024, the Home Department, via
Letter No. 4009(A)/Chah-PO-2024-754401
dated 14.09.2024, directed all District
Magistrates
to
conduct
extensive
consultations with the concerned officers of
the Excise, Forest, and Mines Departments
and to forward consolidated suggestions to
the Secretary (Home).

14.
Based
on
preliminary
data
compiled by the Police Headquarters, it has
been reported that approximately 72,776
vehicles are currently impounded across all
police stations in Uttar Pradesh. The zonewise and commissionerate-wise breakdown
of these seized vehicles is as follows:

S.
No.
Zone/Commissionerate
Number
of
Vehicles
1.
Meerut
12,478
2.
Bareilly
12,164
3.
Agra
6,764
4.
Kanpur
3,968
5.
Lucknow
9,566
6.
Prayagraj
1,891
7.
Gorakhpur
6,324
8.
Varanasi
7,314
9.
Commissionerate
Lucknow
2,197
10.
Commissionerate
Gautam Buddha Nagar
2,004
11.
Commissionerate
Kanpur
1,945
12.
Commissionerate
Varanasi
802
13.
Commissionerate
Ghaziabad
354
14.
Commissionerate Agra
1,716
15.
Commissionerate
Prayagraj
3,102
16.
GRP
(Government
Railway Police)
187

State Total
72,776

15. The police department, after
deliberation with the respective field
officers,
provided
the
following
suggestions;

15.1 The number of civil police
stations in Uttar Pradesh is approximately
1,500, and the number of vehicles parked at
these stations has been estimated at around
72,776. It is not possible to take action
regarding such a large number of vehicles
without the use of technology. Previously,
a National Vehicle Coordination Portal was
operational, which allowed for the entry of
data related to vehicles impounded at
police stations. A similar portal should be
developed at the state level, and a system
should be implemented that mandates entry
of all vehicle details (registration number,
engine number, chassis number, make,
model, etc.) for all vehicles parked at police
stations. This would facilitate the prompt
disposal of vehicles from police stations. If
the information fed into the portal is shared
with the public, individuals whose vehicles
5 All. Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1053
were stolen will be able to find information
about their vehicles on the portal.

15.2
Campaigns,
similar
to
Operation Clean, should be conducted
from time to time to ensure the disposal of
vehicles parked at police stations.

15.3 In relation to the disposal of
case-related vehicles, proceedings should
begin immediately after the judgment in the
relevant case. In cases where no appeal is
proposed,
those
vehicles
should
be
disposed of on a priority basis through the
order of the magistrate/court.

15.4 At the police station level,
priority action should be taken for the
auction of unclaimed vehicles.

15.5 Efforts should be made to
trace the vehicle owners based on the
registration
number,
engine
number,
chassis number, or other available details.

15.6 For vehicles in which the
owners have already received insurance
claims, the relevant insurance company
should also be informed about the status of
those vehicles.

16. Upon perusal of the compliance
affidavit filed by the Regional Transport
Officer (Enforcement), Prayagraj, it is
noted that a total of 71,344 vehicles have
been seized. Of these, 31,525 vehicles have
been released, while the remaining 39,819
are reported to be parked with the
department across all 19 divisions of Uttar
Pradesh. These vehicles were seized
primarily
for
non-payment
of
tax,
additional tax, and penalties. Additionally,
5,021 vehicles have been auctioned. The
affidavit further clarifies that the seizures
were made under the provisions of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997. After
the payment of the applicable tax, vehicles
are released in accordance with Section
22(2) of the said Act. In cases where the
tax remains unpaid for 45 days, the
vehicles are subject to auction under Rule
9(a) of the U.P. Motor Taxation Rules,
1998.

17. Upon perusal of the letter dated
18.11.2024, issued by the Additional
Excise Commissioner (Administration), it
is revealed that 923 vehicles are currently
parked either in godowns maintained by the
Excise Department or at police stations.
The auction of such vehicles has been
conducted by a committee chaired by the
District Magistrate, with representatives
from both, the Excise and Transport
Department. These auctions take place after
the expiry of the appeal period, in
accordance with Sections 72 and 73 of the
United Provinces Excise Act.

17.1 Further, the Assistant Excise
Commissioner (Task Force) has been
designated as the Nodal Officer for the
development of an integrated singlewindow web portal. It is also noted that the
Office of the Excise Commissioner, Uttar
Pradesh,
through
its
letter
dated
22.11.2024, has directed all District Excise
Officers to implement the prescribed
guidelines
without
delay.
Unclaimed
vehicles are to be dealt with in accordance
with the law, subject to obtaining prior
permission from the competent court.

17.2 The excise department has
also suggested that an integrated portal
should be developed at the state level
where any agency can upload details of
seized vehicles. This information should
include details such as the crime for which
the vehicle was seized, the court/magistrate
where the case is pending, the current
status of the case, auction date as per
decision of the case, market value of the
vehicle, etc. Through this integrated portal,
all Courts will be able to access both the
current status of the vehicle and its
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involvement in criminal activities. This will
facilitate quicker judicial decisions.

17.3 Regarding ownership of the
seized vehicle by any person, institution
(e.g. loan provider), or insurance company,
the vehicle should be auctioned with
permission from the Collector/District
Magistrate, and the proceeds should be
deposited in the government treasury.

17.4 A fixed time frame should
be set for the disposal of seized vehicles
through auction, to ensure disposal within
that period. Basically, delays occur after
the appeal/revision period ends. Hence,
provision should be made for immediate
public auction proceedings as per rules to
avoid unnecessary delays and enable batch
auctions.

17.5 If a vehicle is produced
before a court during investigation or trial,
and a claimant exists, the vehicle should be
handed over to the rightful person upon
completion of the following formalities:

(a) Preparation of a detailed
seizure report (panchnama).

(b) Photographs/videography of
the vehicle and a bond stating that it will be
produced before the court if required
during the trial.

(c) Photographs, videography,
and
seizure
documents
must
be
countersigned by the accused and the
complainant/custodian
receiving
the
vehicle.

17.6 Regular photography of
seized
vehicles
should
be
ensured,
particularly for vehicles under seizure or
pending
appeal/revision.
Fortnightly
photography should be conducted, and
photo-records preserved in a pen drive/CD
with the case file. If an auction/sale is
initiated
post-judicial
order,
proper
photo/videography must be documented as
evidence in the auction records.

17.7 Vehicles released on custody
and later re-seized often lose value due to
depreciation and prolonged use by the
owner, resulting in revenue loss. Therefore,
at the time of release by the competent
court to any claimant (owner, loan
provider, insurer), a Fixed Deposit Receipt
(FDR) of the evaluated vehicle value
should be taken in favour of the concerned
district-level officer, pledged as security for
the prosecution.

17.8 Under Section 72 of the
United Provinces Excise Act, a report must
be submitted to the District Magistrate
within 3 days of registering the case. In the
absence of a market value report, vehicle
release is delayed. The Act allows for the
filing of the case within 3 days of vehicle
seizure; hence, it is proposed that the
seizing agency be mandated to provide a
market valuation report from a competent
authority within 7 days to the Court.

17.9 If, within 3 months of
registering a case under Section 72, no
confiscation order is received from the
competent court, the vehicle should be
released to the owner on the condition that
they submit a bond equivalent to the market
value, agreeing to present the vehicle in
working
condition
whenever
required
during the trial. Sale of the vehicle during
this period will be prohibited.

17.10 In cases where no claim is
made under Section 72 by the accused,
vehicle owner, insurance company, or any
other party, notices should be issued to the
vehicle owner and insurance company (if
the vehicle was financed), and further
action should be followed in accordance
with suggestions made herein above.

17.11 If it is not possible to
ascertain the vehicle owner or insurance
company, the vehicle should be auctioned
on a fixed date after publishing notices in
5 All. Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1055
the two most widely read newspapers in the
district where the vehicle was registered.

17.12 The seizure process and
current status of vehicles used in illegal
transportation
of
narcotics
must
be
mandatorily reviewed in the monthly crime
meetings chaired by the Collector/Senior
Superintendent of Police. Any obstacles in
the seizure process must be resolved
immediately in that meeting.

18. The Prosecution Department has
informed that the Home Department has,
from time to time, issued guidelines
concerning the disposal of seized goods.
Notably, Government Order No. 698/ि-पु09-16-31(16)/2016 dated 18th April 2016,
issued after due consideration by the State
Government, outlines specific directions
for the disposal of goods stored in district
and police station godowns. The key
provisions relating to the disposal of seized
vehicles are as follows:

18.1 Where any property is seized
by the police, the concerned Station Officer
should send the information about the
seizure of the property to the court within
seven days and ensure the disposal of the
goods after obtaining orders from the court.

18.2 The provisions of section
158 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule
203, along with the prescribed form SR 48
(Investigating Officer's Report), must be
complied with and each investigating
officer will ensure compliance with these
rules and promptly send their report to the
concerned court during the investigation of
accident-related cases.

18.3 Failure to comply with this
will result in action under Section 23 read
with Section 29 of the Police Act. If there
is no claimant for the vehicle, the insurance
company's network should be used to trace
the actual owner.

18.4 Goods stored in the district
or police station godowns, whose cases
have been disposed of, should be disposed
of promptly through a sustained campaign.

18.5 In the monthly prosecution
review meeting of the District Magistrate,
in which the Superintendent of Police shall
remain present, a detailed review of the
disposal of goods seized by the police shall
be done.

18.6 If the courts are not showing
interest in the disposal of goods, it should
be discussed in the monitoring cell's
meeting to ensure proper coordination with
the courts.

18.7 The annual report of each
Station Officer or Station Head will also be
based on the disposal of goods in their
jurisdiction.
All
Superintendents
of
Police/Deputy Inspector Generals/Inspector
Generals will ensure this action is carried out.

19. Where the case property remains
pending even after the lapse of the appeal
period, a notice in the prescribed format
under the General Rules (Criminal) should
be given to the person entitled to the
property. If such a person fails to appear to
claim the property, or if the property
remains unclaimed, or if the owner cannot
be traced, or if the police has been unable
to identify the legal heir of the property,
and no complaint is filed regarding such
property, then the unclaimed property shall
be disposed of in accordance with the
procedure laid down under Sections 457,
458, and 459 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

20. The Secretary (Department of
Home)
forwarded
the
following
suggestions:

20.1 Case Property: In cases
where a final report has been submitted, the
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court should promptly approve it and issue
an order for disposal of the case property.
A timeline for disposal should be fixed
accordingly. For very old case properties,
the status of the case outcome must be
ascertained, based on which unnecessary
pending case properties can be disposed of.

20.2 Unclaimed / Unattended
Property: Most of such items lose their
utility over time, leading to a loss of public
funds and shortage of storage space in the
malkhana. A list of such unclaimed and
unattended items should be prepared and
disposed of through the auction process via
the concerned magistrate. The value of
auctionable items should be assessed by
competent authorities to determine their
base price.

20.3
Attachments
(Seizures):
Often, items under attachment are kept
haphazardly in open areas or other usable
spaces in police premises due to a lack of
proper storage, against norms. Items that
are likely to perish should be auctioned
after obtaining a court order, and the cash
proceeds be safely deposited so they can be
returned if needed. If the accused, whose
property has been attached, is arrested or
appears before the court, the property
should be returned to the family.

20.4 Personal Search Items:
Items obtained during the personal search
of an accused at the time of arrest often
remain pending after submission of the
charge-sheet. Clear instructions should be
issued that such items should be returned to
the family members at the address provided
by the accused, or as disposal ensured
accordingly.

20.5
Vehicles
involved
in
accidents, whose owners are known, should
be returned to them after technical
inspection and obtaining a court order.
Otherwise, the vehicle should be auctioned
within six months after receiving court
directions.

20.6 Similar to other states
(Kerala
and
Andhra
Pradesh),
the
feasibility of establishing "district-level
centralized vehicle yards" using QR code
tracking-
linked
with
the
state-level
centralized malkhana information center-
should be thoroughly studied. If required,
the Home Department may consider
initiating this project as a pilot in select
districts.

20.7
Disposal
of
unclaimed/unattended items: A list of such
items should be prepared, court orders
should be obtained, and disposal carried out
through auction as soon as possible. In
cases where the owner of an unclaimed
vehicle cannot be traced or verified, the
Transport Department should be instructed
to quickly determine its value for auction.

20.8 Disposal of insured vehicles:
In cases where the vehicle owner has
already received insurance compensation,
the vehicle comes under the control of the
insurance company. In such situations, after
obtaining a court order, a deadline should
be set for the insurance company to take
custody of the vehicle. If they fail to do so
within the prescribed time, the vehicle
should be auctioned as per the rules.

20.9 A web portal be linked via
API with the CCTNS system with the
assistance of the Police Technical Services
Headquarters. For linking with CCTNS, the
NIC can assess and define the functional
requirements for the new web-based
application software. If this software
operates on the "One Data Once Entry"
principle, it could be beneficial for all
stakeholders.

20.10 In addition to the above,
the Police Department and the Excise
Department should also conduct in-depth
discussions
and
deliberations
on
the
5 All. Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1057
aforementioned suggestions to develop a
practical
and
working
plan
with
coordination among all stakeholders.

21. Suggestions were also invited from
the learned District Judges to identify the
legal impediments faced by trial courts in
ordering the release of seized vehicles,
particularly in cases involving procedural
deficiencies or irregularities committed by
confiscating
authorities,
designated
officers, or investigating officers at the time
of seizure. The submissions highlight that,
during hearings on release applications, the
prosecution frequently relies on judgments
of the Constitutional Courts to argue that
the courts lack jurisdiction to release
vehicles under certain special statutes. The
learned District Judge has also highlighted
various
deficiencies
and
procedural
irregularities committed by the confiscating
and investigating authorities at the time of
vehicle
seizure.
Several
illustrative
instances of such lapses have been noted in
the preceding paragraphs. These include:

21.1 The verification process
mandated under Rule 203-A of the Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998-
requiring the preparation of a technical
report and verification of documents such
as
the
driving
licence,
registration
certificate, fitness certificate, insurance
papers, and route permit- is often not
carried out in a timely manner by the
Investigating
Officer.
This
delay
is
generally caused when the offending
vehicle is registered outside the State.

21.2 In cases involving heinous
crimes, the timely collection of forensic
samples or evidence (e.g., bloodstains)
from the offending vehicle is often not
conducted.
This
procedural
lapse
contributes to unwarranted delays in the
release of the vehicle.

21.3 There are frequent delays in
the deposit of security bonds by the
claimants, which stalls further processing
of release orders.

21.4 There is non-compliance by
State agencies with release orders issued by
Gangster Courts, often on the ground that
an appeal has been filed before the
Appellate Court, despite no stay having
been granted.

21.5 There is non-compliance by
Investigating Officers with the directions of
the Supreme Court mandates that the
Investigating Officer must inform the
concerned insurance company about the
involvement of a vehicle in the commission
of an offence4.

22. A comprehensive exercise has
been undertaken by the learned District
Judges, the Secretary (Home), the Principal
Secretary (Excise and Transport), and the
office of the Director General of Police. To
facilitate deliberation on the issues at hand
and to formulate appropriate guidelines and
recommendations, a high-level committee
was also constituted by Director General of
Police, comprising the Additional Director
General
of
Police
(Prosecution),
the
Additional Director General of Police
(Technical), and the Additional Director
General of Police (Crime) to examine the
issue raised in the present case.

23. The seizure of vehicles involved in
the commission of offences under various
special statutes is a common occurrence.
However, the procedure for their release is
not uniform and is governed by specific
statutory provisions that often override
general criminal procedure laws such as
Sections 497 to 505 of the BNSS, 2023.

24. The release of seized vehicles
under special statutes in State is governed
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by distinct procedural mechanisms and
statutory bars, which often exclude the
jurisdiction of criminal courts under the
BNSS, 2023. These bars serve specific
legislative intents- be it to deter smuggling,
protect forests, control narcotics, or prevent
cow slaughter. However, these statutory
frameworks also highlight the need for
timely
adjudication,
administrative
efficiency, and safeguarding property rights
through
due
process.
Courts
and
enforcement authorities must strike a
balance between legal rigor and economic
utility, ensuring that while the law is
upheld, national assets are not rendered
useless due to bureaucratic inertia or legal
uncertainty.

25. It's been figured that 72,776
vehicles are stationed at police stations
seized by the police, and 923 vehicles, has
been seized by the excise departments, and
are parked either in the go-down managed
by excise or a police station, and 39,819
vehicles are pending with the transport
department. In Uttar Pradesh, on average,
7500 vehicles are seized against a target of
14180. 11819 vehicles are kept in the
transport department's custody for more
than 45 days, whereas, as per rule, there is
a specific procedure codified through Rule
19 A of U.P. Motor Taxation Rules, 1998
to auction the vehicle after 45 days. In this
regard, a reference is invited to a letter
dated 27.11.2024, issued by Additional
Transport Commissioner (Enforcement),
Uttar Pradesh.

26.
Whether
the
vehicles
are
confiscated under the Excise Act, Customs
Act, NDPS Act, Forest Act, Cow Slaughter
Act, or general provisions of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, vehicles
represent more than mere instruments of
offence- they are critical components of
national
infrastructure
and
economic
activity.

27. The fundamental jurisprudential
principle is "Punish the offender, not the
instrument." A vehicle does not commit a
crime- it is, at best, a passive tool misused
by an individual. The law must be
sufficiently nuanced to distinguish between
the culpability of a person and the utility of
property. Retaining vehicles for extended
periods, often under the pretext of pending
trials or procedural gaps, leads to economic
waste, administrative inefficiency, and a
violation of the owner's fundamental rights
when legal ownership is not conclusively
challenged.

28. Every seized vehicle is not just an
impounded object- it is a national asset.
Vehicles contribute to industrial growth,
logistics, agriculture, tourism, and trade.
The longer they are left to deteriorate in
police
stations,
excise
godowns,
or
transport yards, the greater the loss to the
national economy. Data reveals a troubling
picture: 72,776 vehicles lie idle at police
stations, 923 with the excise department,
and over 39,819 vehicles are pending with
the transport department, many beyond the
statutorily permissible limit. In Uttar
Pradesh alone, 11,819 vehicles remain in
custody beyond 45 days, contrary to Rule
19-A of the U.P. Motor Taxation Rules,
1998, which codifies a clear procedure for
their disposal.

29. Idle vehicles contribute nothing to
the GDP, commercial tax, or employment
sectors. If released for lawful use, they
would re-enter the economy, generate fuel
tax, toll revenue, goods and services tax
(GST), and contribute to employment in
logistics and transportation. The economic
rationale for their release is thus aligned
5 All. Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1059
with both public interest and fiscal
prudence.

30.
Courts,
as
custodians
of
constitutional and legal rights, must adopt a
growth-oriented lens while dealing with the
release of seized vehicles. The judicial
discourse should be informed by the
broader national objective of economic
development and minimization of wastage.
While some special statutes create bars on
judicial release, courts can, and should,
proactively:
(a)
encourage
timely
compliance with confiscation, auction or
release
procedures,
(b)
monitor
departmental
delay
and
direct
accountability for non-compliance, (c)
utilize interim custody orders (supratnama
or indemnity bonds) to prevent property
degradation without prejudicing the case,
(d) courts must ensure that administrative
lethargy does not override statutory and
constitutional safeguards.

31. It is apparent from the suggestions
received from the learned District Judges
that the seizure and release of vehicles
involved in alleged criminal activity
constitutes a significant area of concern for
criminal courts. This concern is particularly
gained importance when vehicles are seized
under special statutes, such as the U.P.
Cow Slaughter Act, 1945, the U.P. Excise
Act, the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the
U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2021. These statutes contain statutory bars
that override the general provisions of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

32. Section 5A(7) of U.P. Cow
Slaughter Act, 1945 provides an explicit bar
on judicial discretion for releasing seized
vehicles. The provision reflects a legislative
intention to empower only the authorized
officers or the State government with
decision-making
authority
regarding
confiscation and release. This provision
states: "No order shall be passed for the
release of the vehicle by any court during the
pendency of the trial or confiscation
proceedings."

32.1 Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act,
1910 deals with the confiscation of seized
property, vesting power solely in the
Collector. The section creates a parallel
adjudicatory framework, distinct from the
criminal
trial,
thereby
excluding
the
jurisdiction of Magistrates in release matters.

32.2
Section
52-D
(U.P.
Amendment, 2001) of Indian Forest Act,
1927 (as amended in U.P.) categorically bars
any other officer or court from exercising
jurisdiction over seized property and Section
52 and 52-A empower forest officers to
conduct confiscation proceedings.

32.3 Rule 72(6) of U.P. Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2021 clearly
stipulates the competent authority and
procedure for release, thereby precluding
judicial interference during the pendency of
departmental
proceedings.
Rule
72(6)
provides that: "After the deposit of penalty
and the price of minor minerals, the vehicle
and material shall be released by the District
Magistrate."

33. While strict compliance with
statutory bars is non-negotiable, but courts
and concerned departments must also
consider the economic utility of vehicles as
national assets. It's high time that a
mechanism
be
developed
for
timely
adjudication of confiscation, auction and
release proceedings, establishing clear
timelines and digital tracking systems for
seizure, reporting, and resolution.

34. The legal regime governing the
release of seized vehicles under special
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statutes is characterized by statutory
exclusivity, procedural complexity, and
judicial discretion. The consistent message
from courts is that special statutes prevail
over general provisions of the procedural
code. However, this rigid structure must be
balanced against the rights of owners, the
economic interests of the State, and the
public interest. A harmonized framework
that integrates procedural discipline with
pragmatic flexibility is essential to ensure
both the rule of law and economic
rationality in the treatment of seized
vehicles. Therefore, a legislative review to
harmonize
conflicting
procedures
and
permit
interim
release
under
strict
conditions, especially where ownership is
not disputed, may serve both justice and
economic efficiency.

35. These issues underscore the need
for clarity, codification, and training for all
stakeholders,
including
police
and
prosecutors.

36.
Whether
the
vehicles
are
confiscated under the Excise Act, Customs
Act, NDPS Act, Forest Act, Cow Slaughter
Act, or general provisions of the Criminal
Procedure
Code
(Cr.P.C.),
vehicles
represent more than mere instruments of
offence- they are critical components of
national
infrastructure
and
economic
activity.

37. The issue has gained significance
to
the
district
court
judges,
who
encountered legal impediments during the
adjudication
of
release
applications,
particularly where statutory and procedural
irregularities are involved in the seizure
process.

38. Sections 497 to 505 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
lay down a comprehensive framework
governing the custody, interim release, and
disposal of property presented before the
court
during
investigation
or
trial
proceedings.

38.1 The provisions contained in
Sections 497 to 505 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, do not
become otiose in instances where the
concerned department fails to comply with
the statutory timelines prescribed under a
Special Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
The statutory scheme emphasizes the
necessity of timely adjudication, not only to
protect the interests of the department but
also to ensure judicial oversight aimed at
preventing the loss, deterioration, or
misappropriation of property produced
before the court during investigation or
trial.

38.2 Section 504 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prescribes
the procedure to be followed when no
claimant establishes a valid claim over
seized property within a period of six
months.