Partly allowed

Chan Mia v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026Crl.Rev.P./290/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, dealing with an application under Section 438 BNSS for custody of seized betel nuts, directed the Investigating Officer to verify petitioner's documents. If verified as proper, the perishable goods must be handed over to the petitioner as the rightful owner, following Supreme Court principles to prevent deterioration and ensuring inventory and undertaking were provided.

What did the court decide?

Directing Investigating Officer to verify petitioner's documents; if found correct, hand over seized betel nuts to petitioner on custody with necessary formalities.

Chan Mia Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010108952026

2026:GAU-AS:13780

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶5

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶6

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./290/2026

¶7

CHAN MIA

¶8

S/O LATE SIRAJ MIA

¶9

R/O RAJNAGAR, JOHARLAL NEHRU S.B. SCHOOL, TELIAMURA, P.O. GOLABARI, DISTRICTWEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA.

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR,

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

16.09.2026

¶18

1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP for the State of Assam.

¶19

2. By this application, filed under Section 442 read with Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by

¶20

Page No.# 2/4

¶21

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon whereby the custody of 135 bags of betel nuts was not handed over to the petitioner.

¶22

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 04.05.2026, an FIR was lodged by the Office-in-Charge, New Bongaigaon GRP, Bongaigaon, Assam stating inter alia that acting upon reliable information regarding the movement of a substantial quantity of contraband of Burmese supari, which was suspected to be stolen the police personnel proceeded to the railway station. Upon conducting a search, 270 gunny bags containing dried betel nuts suspected to be Burmese supari were recovered.

¶23

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said consignment was seized on 04.05.2026 and that the betel nuts are perishable commodities. He further submits that on 25.05.2026, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bongaigaon seeking custody (Zimma) of the said betel nuts. However, by order dated 25.05.2026, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the said articles on Zimma.

¶24

5. It is submitted that the prayer was rejected on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer wherein it was stated that verification of the GST-related documents, e-way bills, tax invoices and other relevant documents had not been completed and that certain inconsistencies were also noticed in the said documents. On the said ground, the learned trial Court rejected the application for Zimma.

¶25

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has annexed the details of the e-way bills wherein it is shown that the petitioner, who is the proprietor of

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

Madina Basanalaya had purchased the betel nuts from one Mahamad Ala Uddin as well as Suhana Enterprise. It is further shown that the said consignment was dispatched from the petitioner’s concern, namely, Madina Basanalaya, situated in Tripura to the consignee in Karnataka by train. While the consignment was in transit, the police personnel seized the said betel nuts at Bongaigaon Railway Station.

¶28

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the said betel nuts were legally purchased by him from the concerns situated in Tripura and were thereafter dispatched to the consignee situated in Karnataka.

¶29

8. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP, however, submits that a report has been called for from the Investigating Officer of the said case but the same has not yet been received despite his best efforts.

¶30

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Since the report sought from the Investigating Officer has not been received for a considerable period, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present application with a direction to the Investigating Officer to verify the documents furnished by the petitioner, the e-way bills, invoices and GST-related documents and if the documents are found to be in order to hand over the seized articles to the petitioner on appropriate terms and conditions as may be deemed fit. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions including Ambalal Sundarbhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, that articles seized in connection with a criminal offence should without unnecessary delay be entrusted to the custody of the owner, the person from whose possession they were seized or the insurer as the case may be. Keeping such articles in a police station or at any other place for a prolonged

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

period may result in their deterioration or damage.

¶33

10. In the present case, it is seen that the seized articles are betel nuts, which are perishable in nature and are liable to decay. Accordingly, it is directed that the same be handed over to the petitioner subject to his being found to be the rightful owner thereof.

¶34

11. It is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that before handing over the seized articles in custody, the necessary procedure should be followed including taking photographs and preparing an inventory/panchnama as may be required. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that the articles or the proceeds thereof as the case may be, shall be produced or kept intact for the purpose of the trial.

¶35

12. In view of the aforesaid, the Investigating Officer of the said case is directed to peruse and verify the documents furnished by the petitioner and if the petitioner is found to be the rightful owner of the seized articles hand over the same to him on custody at the earliest subject to compliance with the necessary formalities.

¶36

13. The petition stands disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Chan Mia v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chan Mia v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases