Unlawful police seizure can be challenged in writ jurisdiction even when title to the goods is disputed.

Goods seized by police without authority of law could be restored in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even though title to the goods was disputed and other remedies were available. The seizure was made without a magistrate's order and without support from the applicable Criminal Procedure provisions, so it was outside legal authority and infringed constitutional rights. The Court held that in summary proceedings the legality of the seizure did not depend on finally deciding ownership, because a person in possession cannot be deprived of goods except by authority of law. Relief under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unavailable because that provision did not apply and the magistrate lacked jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods seized by the police without authority of law could be restored in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding a disputed title to the goods and the availability of other remedies.

Analysis: The seizure was made by the police without the orders of any magistrate and without support from any applicable provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions invoked for search and seizure did not apply to the facts, and the action of the Jammu and Chamba police was found to be outside legal authority. The Court held that the legality of the seizure, and the resulting infringement of constitutional rights, did not depend upon finally determining title to the goods in these summary proceedings. A person in possession could not be deprived of the goods except by authority of law. The objection based on a remedy under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected because that provision had no application and the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.

Conclusion: The seizure was illegal, the petitioner's constitutional rights were infringed, and relief by writ was warranted. The appeal was allowed and restoration of the seized goods was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Property seized from possession cannot be retained or removed by the police except under authority of law, and disputed title does not bar relief in writ jurisdiction where the seizure itself is unlawful.

---