High Court Declines To Vacate Interim Restraint On Handover Of Rented Warehouse To Tenant

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khound heard an application filed by Sri Vivek Singh, the authorised signatory of M/s Continental Milkose (India) Ltd., seeking vacation/modification of the High Court’s interim order dated 12.09.2022 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 453/2022. The challenge arose from the investigating officer’s refusal to hand over possession of a rented warehouse at Chatabari Industrial Area, Chaygaon, which was kept sealed in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 457/2021.

The High Court declined to modify the interim direction and dismissed I.A. (Crl.) 625/2022. The court reiterated the settled principle that a police officer had no power to seize immovable property and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, but observed that in the present case the warehouse was "the place of occurrence" and had not been formally seized by the police. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above, I would answer the reference by holding that the phrase ‘any property’ in Section 102 will only cover moveable property and not immovable property.” The judge further recorded that “the warehouse has not been seized by the police. The property is however kept under lock and key to the disadvantage of the petitioners,” and concluded that no irregularity in investigation was discernible so as to warrant modification of the court’s earlier interim order.

Background: The dispute arose after M/s Continental Milkose secured government contracts to supply micronutrient-fortified rice and used a rented warehouse at Chatabari as a transit godown in May–June 2021. Delivery orders issued by FCI prompted the company’s representative to lift allocated rice; 13 truck-loads were sent to the rented premises. On 03.06.2021 police of Boko P.S. registered an FIR alleging pilferage and misappropriation of FCI/PDS rice and seized thousands of bags of rice, empty bags bearing markings “for Assam Rifles only”, a rice-polishing machine and related items. The police thereafter preserved the warehouse as the place of occurrence and placed guards at the gate.

The company applied under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for zimma of certain empty bags and for restoration of possession of the warehouse. The Magistrate rejected the application on 03.06.2022, relying on the investigating officer’s assertion that the articles were needed as evidence and that the warehouse was the scene of the crime. The High Court, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 306/2022, set aside the Magistrate’s order and remanded the matter. Pursuant thereto, the trial court on 30.06.2022 directed the investigating officer to hand over custody of the warehouse to the tenant. The investigating officer approached the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 453/2022; this Court passed an interim order on 12.09.2022 directing that "till returnable date, the investigating Officer shall not hand over the custody/possession of the warehouse/godown ... to its tenant."

The applicant thereafter sought vacation or modification of that interim order contending prolonged police custody caused commercial loss, that Section 102 Cr.P.C. did not permit seizure of immovable property, and that most evidentiary material had been handed over. The High Court examined the Supreme Court authority in Nevada Properties and accepted the principle that police power of seizure must be limited to movable property, but found that in the present facts the warehouse was treated as a place of occurrence and entry was restricted for investigative purposes. Concluding that no irregularity in investigation was shown, the Court refused to direct handover of the premises and dismissed the I.A. The interim restraint therefore continued until further orders in the revision proceeding.

Case No.: I.A. (Crl.) 625/2022 with Crl.Rev.P. 453/2022 Case Title: Sri Vivek Singh v. The State of Assam Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.D. Konwar, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.K. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor