Ahmedabad: Can police confiscate a vehicle allegedly used to ferry liquor while the criminal trial is still pending? Gujarat High Court has put the question under scrutiny, staying an order passed by a DSP for confiscation of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.The court issued notice to the state govt after the vehicle owner challenged the confiscation—effectively transferring ownership to govt—arguing that police authorities cannot permanently take away a seized vehicle without a judicial order, a procedure prescribed under the amended prohibition law.The case assumes significance as Gujarat assembly had passed The Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Bill, 2024 to amend the prohibition act, empowering govt to auction vehicles used in ferrying liquor and other intoxicants even before a court pronounces its final order in the case. The bill was passed with a majority vote. It made changes in section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Earlier, vehicles seized in prohibition cases could not be released until a court pronounced its final order in the case. The amendment enabled govt to auction such vehicles with permission of a court.The case concerns a loading auto rickshaw seized by Tharad police earlier this year for allegedly transporting liquor. Its owner, Premaji Vajir, had approached the lower court seeking release of the muddamal vehicle. However, the courts declined to hand over possession as the quantity of liquor allegedly recovered was more than 20 litres.While the criminal trial was pending, the DSP, Tharad division, issued an order confiscating the vehicle. Vajir then moved the high court, contending that the police officer had no authority to order confiscation without an order from a competent court.Appearing for Vajir, her counsel submitted that the DSP had invoked Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act to confiscate the vehicle. She argued that the provision does not empower a prohibition officer to independently confiscate a vehicle, particularly when the criminal proceedings have not concluded.The petitioner relied on a 2024 Supreme Court judgment, which clarified the distinction between seizure and confiscation under the Act. According to the submission, Section 98 deals with articles liable to confiscation and the court’s powers, while Section 123 authorises seizure but does not vest an authorised prohibition officer with the power to confiscate.The petitioner argued that confiscating the vehicle during the pendency of the trial, without a judicial order, was legally unsustainable.After hearing the matter, Justice M K Thakker issued notice to the state govt and stayed the DSP’s order, stating, “The order passed by the DSP, Tharad Division, Tharad, is hereby stayed.”The matter has been posted for further hearing on Oct 22.
