Locus standi to challenge seizure release denied where the appellant was neither owner nor authorised by the owner.

A person who is neither the owner of seized goods nor duly authorised by the owner lacks locus standi to challenge rejection of their release. Mere custody of the goods as manager of a courier company did not create a legal entitlement to appeal, because no ownership or valid authorisation was shown. The appeal was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, being neither the owner of the seized goods nor duly authorised by the owner, had locus standi to maintain the appeal against rejection of release of the goods.

Analysis: The appellant did not establish any right to prefer the appeal. Mere custody of the goods as Manager of the courier company did not confer a legal entitlement to challenge the order, particularly when no ownership of the goods was shown and no proper authorisation from the owner was produced.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable for want of locus standi and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained, as the appellant failed to show any legal capacity to maintain the challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is neither the owner of the seized goods nor duly authorised by the owner cannot maintain an appeal merely because the goods were in the custody of his employer.

---