‘Wholly-illegal’ — Madhya Pradesh HC raps surveillance team over gold seizure ahead of 2023 polls

The court awarded Rs 50,000 in favour of all the writ petitioners, payable by the respondents.

On October 23, 2023, a Bolero Vehicle operated by Sequel Logistics Private Limited was intercepted by the SST in Ratlam district. The SST allegedly seized 37 consignments of jewellery valued at over Rs 6 crore.

This came while the Model Code of Conduct was imposed ahead of the state assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh. Following this, the Income Tax department issued notice to Amit Sharma, a custodian officer of Sequel Logistics who was allegedly present in the vehicle along with the driver and was accused of being the owner of the consignment.

Sharma, who filed the writ petition along with two other parties, has denied the allegations.

The petitioners approached the high court challenging the legality of seizure, requisition and consequential assessment proceedings. They argued that “the seizure and requisition were bad in law as done without authority of law and contrary to the statutory safeguards as provided by law”.

The authorities have responded to the allegations by stating that the “seizure of the consignments…was carried out strictly in discharge of statutory duties assigned to the Static Surveillance Team (SST) as part of election related enforcement mechanisms mandated by the Election Commission of India.”

The court observed that the SST and District Grievance Committee “did not consider the important facts that the Vehicle was not carrying any unaccounted cash, election posters, election materials, drugs, arms, etc”.

The court also observed that “there is a contradiction in the number of consignments and the value of the jewellery in the documents of the SST and Income Tax Department”.

“Therefore, the action of the SST and District Grievance Committee is wholly illegal in keeping the valuable consignments with them for seven days and not recording the satisfaction and thereafter, handing over to the Income Tax Department,” the court said.

The court said the “SST or District Grievance Committee was only required to inform the Income Tax Department about the release of these articles”. “Therefore, handing over of these articles to the Income Tax Department is, per se, illegal,” the court ruled.