Interim custody of seized vehicle allowed despite pending confiscation proceedings, where no guilt finding existed and deterioration risk was high.

Interim custody of a seized vehicle was found permissible despite pending excise confiscation proceedings, because no criminal court finding of guilt had yet been recorded and the vehicle had remained in police custody long enough to risk deterioration. The High Court applied the principle that seized property should ordinarily be released to its rightful owner at the earliest, and held that confiscation proceedings alone did not justify refusal of interim custody on these facts. Custody was made subject to security and preservation conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court despite pending confiscation proceedings under the excise law.

Analysis: The vehicle had been seized in connection with an excise offence and confiscation proceedings had already been initiated, which led the courts below to refuse custody under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The material before the Court showed that no finding of guilt had yet been recorded by the criminal court and that the vehicle had remained in police custody for a considerable period, making deterioration likely. The Court applied the principle that seized property should ordinarily be released to the rightful owner at the earliest and held that the pendency of confiscation proceedings did not, by itself, justify refusal of interim custody in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: Interim custody of the vehicle was held to be permissible, subject to security and preservation conditions, and the petitioner succeeded.

---