Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010167462026 2026:GAU-AS:12208 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./403/2026 SHAHIDUL ISLAM AND ANR S/O OMAR ALI, R/O HOUSE NO. 109, KA, NIZ BAGHBAR, PO BAGHBAR, PS BAGHBAR, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781308 2: RUKUDDIN REHMAN S/O GAFFUR REHMAN R/O ICD COLONY AMINGAON ICD SHILA SINDURI GHOPA AMINGAON DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN CODE 78103 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. A MAHANTA,MR. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 25.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Basistha P.S. Case No. 262 of 2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/305(e)/317(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The present petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, Shahidul Islam and Rukuddin Rehman. 4. It is stated that Petitioner No. 1 has claimed custody of the rice seized by the police in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 262 of 2026 whereas Petitioner No. 2 has claimed custody of the truck bearing registration No. AS-01- KC-0792 which was also seized in connection with the aforesaid case. 5. The case in connection with which the rice bags and the truck were seized was lodged on 14.07.2026. It was stated by the police personnel that acting on source information that PDS rice was being transported from Barpeta to Meghalaya in a truck, Naka checking was conducted and the said truck was intercepted at Lalmati, Beharbari at about 3:20 p.m. on 14.07.2026. Upon inspection, 200 bags of PDS rice were found loaded in the said vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was apprehended and was asked to produce the relevant documents. However, he failed to produce any valid document in respect of the Page No.# 3/6 said rice. 6. The police, after seizing the rice as well as the truck took the driver along with the seized articles to Basistha Police Station. Upon conducting a preliminary enquiry, it was found that the driver in connivance with his associates was illegally transporting PDS rice for his unlawful gain thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 is the proprietor of Ershad Traders and by referring to the documents submits that the said rice, i.e., PDS rice was purchased by Ershad Traders on 24.04.2026 pursuant to two release orders. One of the release orders reflects that the said proprietorship firm purchased 13 metric tonnes of rice while the other release order reflects that the said proprietorship firm purchased 22 metric tonnes of PDS rice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record the truck chit which demonstrates that the rice was transported from the place of purchase to Niz Baghbar and thereafter to the purchaser at Ganeshguri. In support of her submission she has also placed on record the bill of supply which demonstrates that Ershad Traders had sold 12 metric tonnes of rice to M/s Aman Store located at Ganeshguri, Guwahati. 9. The learned counsel submits that while the truck was in transit the said rice was seized. However, the rice was in fact PDS rice which had been duly purchased and was being transported for sale to M/s Aman Store at Guwahati. With regard to the truck, the learned counsel submits that the said PDS rice was being carried in the truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-KC-0792 which is also Page No.# 4/6 reflected in the bill of supply. 10. As such, the learned counsel has prayed that custody of the truck and the rice be handed over to Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1, respectively. 11. Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP however submits that in the rejection order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup (M) it has been stated that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion also transported PDS rice in connection with which cases were instituted against him. He further submits that confiscation proceedings are pending in respect of the seized rice and as such the rice cannot be handed over in the custody of Petitioner No. 1. He also submits that in the said order dated 29.07.2026 it has been observed that the ownership of the vehicle has not been established and that the vehicle is also required for the purpose of further investigation. 12. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel this Court finds as follows: 13. It is a settled position of law that articles or vehicles seized in connection with any criminal offence should as far as possible be released in the custody of the owner the person or from whose possession they were seized or the insurance company with which they are insured at the earliest possible opportunity by the learned Magistrate. However, the Apex Court has also held that before releasing such articles or vehicles proper procedure including preparation of a panchnama, furnishing of a bank guarantee and an undertaking or guarantee by the claimant to produce the articles or vehicle as and when required during the trial as well as taking of photographs and by following such other requisite procedures. 14. In the instant case, it is seen that pursuant to the release orders the Page No.# 5/6 petitioner had purchased the rice from the Food Corporation of India and was transporting the same in the truck that was seized for sale to a concern in Guwahati. The bill of supply annexed to the instant petition also substantiates the said claim. 15. Further, as regards the ownership of the truck it is the pleaded case of Petitioner No. 2 that he is the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. AS- 01-KC-0792, Chassis No. MB1A2GCD2JRCX9854, Engine/Motor No. JCEZ420103, Maker’s Name: Ashok Leyland Ltd., Model Name: ECOMET 1214 E4 and Colour: NP Brown. It is further stated that the vehicle has been financed by Indusland Bank Ltd. 16. Accordingly, in light of the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Court directs the Investigating Officer to verify the ownership of the truck and if it is found that Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the said truck, the same shall be released in his custody, namely, Rukuddin Rehman. The I.O. shall further comply with the requisite conditions including taking photographs, obtaining a bank guarantee of reasonable amount, drawing up a proper panchnama and complying with such other requirements as prescribed under law. 17. As regards the bags of rice although it has been stated that confiscation proceedings are pending it is also noticed that no notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been issued to the owner of the said rice. Accordingly, the confiscation proceedings in the absence of such notice would not be sustainable. 18. In view of the same, as the rice is shown to be owned by Petitioner No. 1 on the basis of the release orders and bills of supply, the same shall be released Page No.# 6/6 in the custody of Petitioner No. 1 during the pendency of the case. The I.O. is further directed to comply with all the conditions stipulated hereinabove before releasing the rice in the custody of Petitioner No. 1. 19. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant