Can the accused obtain a mandamus from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to restore aromatic seed stock seized by out of state police without a magistrate’s order?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a small manufacturing unit that processes aromatic seeds is operating in a district of Punjab, and the owner, who is also the accused in a pending criminal case, stores several hundred kilograms of the processed product in a locked warehouse that he personally oversees.

The investigating agency of a neighboring state, concerned with alleged smuggling of the same type of seeds across its border, learns that a portion of the seized stock may be present in the Punjab warehouse. Acting on a request from that agency, a team of police officers from the neighboring state travels to the Punjab district, enters the warehouse without presenting any warrant or magistrate’s order, and seizes the entire stock, claiming it as evidence of a larger inter‑state contraband network.

The accused immediately challenges the seizure, arguing that the police had no jurisdiction to act in Punjab, that no cognizable offence was reported to the local police, and that the absence of a magistrate’s order renders the seizure unlawful. He files a written statement before the local magistrate, denying the allegations and offering to produce the seized goods for verification, but the police refuse to return the items, insisting that the matter is now under investigation by the neighboring state’s agency.

Because the seized goods remain in police custody, the accused faces a dual jeopardy: the loss of valuable commercial inventory and the risk that the seizure will be used to substantiate a criminal prosecution against him in the neighboring state. The ordinary factual defence—asserting lack of ownership or contesting the alleged smuggling—does not address the core procedural defect that the seizure was executed without any statutory authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The legal problem, therefore, is whether the police officers from the neighboring state possessed any power to search and seize property situated in Punjab without a magistrate’s order, and whether the accused can obtain immediate relief to have the goods restored, pending any substantive criminal trial. The relevant statutory provisions require either a report of a cognizable offence to the local police or a valid warrant issued by a magistrate before any search or seizure may be lawfully carried out.

In this situation, the accused’s counsel explains that the only effective remedy at this stage is to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to return the seized property. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court familiar with article 226 of the Constitution advises that the High Court can examine the legality of the police action even before the criminal trial commences, because the seizure itself infringes the accused’s fundamental rights to property and personal liberty under articles 19 and 31.

Consequently, the accused files a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a mandamus directing the police to restore the seized aromatic seed stock and restraining any further removal of the goods without a proper magistrate’s order. The petition specifically alleges that the police acted ultra vires, that the inter‑state cooperation was not sanctioned by any statutory provision, and that the continued detention of the goods amounts to an illegal deprivation of property.

The High Court, upon receiving the petition, must first determine whether the police’s entry and seizure were authorized by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It will examine whether the neighboring state’s investigating agency had a legitimate basis to request assistance, whether a cognizable offence was reported to the Punjab police, and whether a magistrate’s order was obtained. If the Court finds that none of these conditions were satisfied, it will conclude that the seizure was unlawful.

Because the accused’s ordinary defence—contesting the smuggling allegations—does not cure the procedural defect, the Court’s intervention is essential to prevent irreversible loss of the commercial stock. The writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy because it compels a public authority, in this case the police, to perform a duty required by law, namely the return of property seized without legal authority.

In preparing the petition, the accused’s counsel consulted a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who had previously handled similar inter‑state seizure disputes. The counsel also coordinated with a team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to ensure that the petition accurately cited the relevant constitutional provisions and procedural safeguards, and to draft precise prayer clauses seeking both the restoration of the goods and an injunction against further unlawful seizures.

During the hearing, the Punjab and Haryana High Court may also consider whether a pending revision petition under the provisions governing the return of seized property (section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) bars the filing of the writ. Drawing on precedent, the Court is likely to hold that the existence of a revision petition does not preclude the High Court’s jurisdiction under article 226, because the writ jurisdiction is intended to address violations of fundamental rights that occur prior to, or independent of, the ordinary criminal process.

Assuming the Court grants the writ, it will issue a mandamus directing the police to return the seized aromatic seed stock to the accused’s possession and to refrain from any further seizure without a valid magistrate’s order. The order will also direct the police to furnish a detailed inventory of the seized items and to account for any loss or damage incurred during the unlawful detention.

Thus, the procedural solution lies in filing a writ petition under article 226 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a mandamus for the restoration of the seized goods. This remedy addresses the core legal problem—an unlawful seizure lacking statutory authority—while bypassing the need to wait for the outcome of the substantive criminal investigation, thereby protecting the accused’s property rights and ensuring compliance with constitutional safeguards.

Question: Does the police force of a neighboring state have any statutory authority to enter a locked warehouse in Punjab, search it, and seize goods without a magistrate’s order or a warrant, and how does the lack of such authority affect the legality of the seizure?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that a team of police officers from a neighboring state travelled to a district of Punjab, entered a locked warehouse that the accused personally oversees, and seized several hundred kilograms of processed aromatic seeds. Under the prevailing criminal procedure framework, any police officer who wishes to search premises or seize property must either act on a report of a cognizable offence made to the local police or obtain a magistrate’s order authorising the intrusion. The officers in this case had neither a local report nor a magistrate’s order, and they were not acting under any inter‑state cooperation treaty that confers a statutory power to bypass these safeguards. Consequently, the seizure is ultra vires the police’s statutory powers. The absence of jurisdiction means that the act is not only procedurally defective but also violative of the accused’s constitutional rights to personal liberty and property. The illegal nature of the seizure opens the door for the accused to challenge it before the High Court, seeking a declaration that the police acted beyond their legal remit. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the police’s intrusion constitutes an unlawful deprivation of property, rendering any evidence obtained thereafter vulnerable to exclusion. Moreover, the illegal seizure may trigger disciplinary action against the officers for contempt of procedural law. The procedural defect also precludes the police from relying on the seized goods as evidence in any subsequent criminal proceeding, because the foundation of the evidence is tainted by illegality. Thus, the lack of statutory authority nullifies the seizure and obliges the court to order restitution of the goods, while also reinforcing the principle that inter‑state police cooperation must respect the procedural safeguards embedded in the criminal justice system.

Question: In what way does the failure to obtain a magistrate’s order before the seizure infringe the accused’s fundamental rights, and what constitutional provisions support a claim for immediate relief?

Answer: The seizure was carried out without a magistrate’s order, a procedural requirement designed to protect individuals from arbitrary state action. This omission directly impinges upon the accused’s right to personal liberty and the right to enjoy and dispose of property, both enshrined in the Constitution. The accused can invoke the guarantee of personal liberty, which includes protection against unlawful detention of one’s possessions, and the right to property, which safeguards against deprivation without due process. The High Court, when approached under its extraordinary jurisdiction, will examine whether the police’s conduct violated these constitutional guarantees. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize that the absence of a magistrate’s order defeats the procedural shield intended to prevent arbitrary searches, thereby constituting a breach of the accused’s fundamental rights. The court can grant immediate relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, compelling the police to return the seized goods, because the continued detention of the property would amount to an ongoing violation. The constitutional provision that empowers the High Court to issue such writs is designed precisely for situations where a public authority exceeds its legal limits, causing irreparable harm. The accused’s claim for immediate relief is further bolstered by the principle that the remedy must be swift to prevent irreversible loss of commercial inventory, which is essential for the livelihood of the business. The court’s intervention, therefore, is not merely remedial but also protective of constitutional rights, ensuring that state power is exercised within the bounds prescribed by law. The presence of a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can help articulate the nexus between the procedural lapse and the constitutional breach, thereby strengthening the petition for restoration of the goods and an injunction against further unlawful seizures.

Question: What is the appropriate High Court remedy for the accused to obtain the return of the seized aromatic seed stock, and how does the existence of a pending revision petition under the return‑of‑property provisions affect the court’s jurisdiction?

Answer: The most suitable remedy at this juncture is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus directing the police to restore the seized goods. This extraordinary jurisdiction allows the High Court to intervene when a fundamental right is infringed before the ordinary criminal process concludes. The accused’s counsel will argue that the seizure was unlawful, and therefore the police have a legal duty to return the property, a duty that can be enforced through mandamus. The existence of a pending revision petition under the statutory return‑of‑property mechanism does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction. Courts have consistently held that a revision petition, which is part of the ordinary criminal process, does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when a fundamental right is at stake. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would stress that the writ jurisdiction is a safeguard against procedural violations that cannot wait for the slower machinery of revision. The High Court can, therefore, entertain the petition concurrently with the pending revision, ensuring that the accused’s property is not irretrievably lost while the criminal proceedings unfold. The court may also issue an interim order restraining the police from disposing of or further detaining the goods until the writ is decided. This approach balances the need to respect the criminal process with the imperative to protect constitutional rights. The practical implication is that the accused can regain control of his commercial inventory promptly, mitigating financial loss, while the criminal investigation proceeds independently. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, familiar with similar inter‑state seizure disputes, can assist in framing the petition to highlight the urgency and the procedural illegality, thereby increasing the likelihood of a favorable mandamus order.

Question: Can the accused seek bail or any other personal liberty relief while the seized goods remain in police custody, and what impact does the unlawful seizure have on the prospects of obtaining such relief?

Answer: The accused is presently detained in the sense that his property is under police custody, which effectively restricts his freedom to conduct business and may also involve personal detention if the police have taken him into custody. While bail traditionally addresses personal liberty concerning physical detention, the unlawful seizure of the goods strengthens the argument for immediate relief. The court, when considering bail, evaluates factors such as the nature of the alleged offence, the risk of flight, and the potential for tampering with evidence. Here, the evidence—namely the seized aromatic seed stock—has already been taken unlawfully, rendering any claim of tampering moot. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can argue that the illegal seizure undermines the prosecution’s case, thereby reducing the necessity for continued detention of the accused. Moreover, the loss of the commercial inventory threatens the accused’s livelihood, a circumstance that courts consider when balancing bail decisions. The High Court may grant bail coupled with a direction that the police return the goods, or it may issue a protective order ensuring that the accused’s business can resume while the criminal proceedings continue. The unlawful nature of the seizure also signals procedural impropriety on the part of the investigating agency, which can be a persuasive factor in granting bail. In practical terms, securing bail would allow the accused to manage his enterprise, mitigate financial damage, and cooperate with the investigation without the cloud of unlawful detention. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can leverage the procedural defect to argue that continued custody, whether of person or property, is unnecessary and unjust, thereby enhancing the prospects of obtaining bail or a comparable liberty relief.

Question: How does an illegal seizure affect the admissibility of the seized aromatic seeds as evidence in any subsequent criminal trial, and what are the broader implications for the prosecution’s case?

Answer: Evidence obtained through an illegal seizure is generally deemed inadmissible, as the principle of exclusionary rule seeks to deter unlawful state action. In this scenario, the police from the neighboring state entered the Punjab warehouse without a magistrate’s order, violating procedural safeguards. Consequently, any forensic analysis, chain‑of‑custody records, or testimony derived from the seized aromatic seeds is tainted by illegality. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would contend that the prosecution cannot rely on the seized goods to establish the alleged smuggling offence, because the foundation of the evidence is compromised. The High Court, when reviewing the writ petition, will likely consider the impact of the illegal seizure on the evidentiary value of the goods, reinforcing the argument that the prosecution’s case is weakened. The broader implication is that the prosecution may be forced to seek alternative evidence, which may be scarce given the nature of the alleged contraband. Moreover, the court’s finding of an unlawful seizure can lead to a reprimand of the investigating agency and may affect the credibility of the prosecution’s overall case. The exclusion of the seized seeds also underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, as any deviation can result in the loss of critical evidence. Practically, this strengthens the accused’s defence, allowing him to argue that the state has failed to meet the burden of proof without the seized items. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, experienced in evidentiary challenges, can leverage this point to seek dismissal of the charges or at least a reduction in the severity of the allegations, thereby safeguarding the accused’s interests while upholding the rule of law.

Question: Can the accused obtain immediate relief by filing a writ before the Punjab and Haryana High Court even though a criminal investigation by the neighbouring state’s police is already under way?

Answer: The High Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus when a public authority acts without legal authority and thereby infringes fundamental rights. In the present facts the police from the neighbouring state entered a locked warehouse in Punjab, seized hundreds of kilograms of aromatic seed stock and retained the goods without any magistrate’s order or a report of a cognizable offence to the local police. This procedural defect is independent of the substantive criminal allegations of smuggling. Because the seizure itself deprives the accused of possession of his property, it triggers the protection under article 19 and article 31. The ordinary factual defence – denying ownership or contesting the smuggling charge – does not cure the illegality of the seizure, as the law requires that the police first obtain statutory authority before touching the property. Consequently, the accused may approach a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to file a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to return the seized stock and restraining any further removal without a valid order. The High Court’s power to examine the legality of the police action at this pre‑trial stage is well‑established, and the existence of a pending criminal case does not bar the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petition will focus on the ultra vires nature of the police entry, the absence of a magistrate’s order, and the violation of constitutional rights, thereby providing a swift and effective remedy that bypasses the slower criminal process and protects the accused’s commercial interests.

Question: Why should the accused engage a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court when preparing the writ petition for the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court offers several strategic advantages that are directly relevant to the procedural posture of the case. First, the High Court’s registry is located in Chandigarh, and the filing, service of notice and subsequent hearings are conducted there; a lawyer familiar with the local rules ensures that the petition complies with the specific formatting, fee structure and deadline requirements, thereby avoiding technical objections that could delay relief. Second, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court have practical experience in drafting mandamus prayers, citing precedent on unlawful seizures, and articulating the constitutional violation of article 19 and article 31 in a manner that resonates with the bench. Third, the accused’s factual matrix involves inter‑state cooperation between police forces, a nuanced issue that often requires reference to prior High Court decisions on jurisdictional limits; a local counsel can efficiently retrieve and rely upon those authorities. Fourth, the procedural route may involve interim applications for temporary relief, such as a stay on further detention of the goods, and a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can promptly move for such interim orders while the main petition is being considered. Finally, the presence of a competent counsel facilitates coordination with a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court for any subsequent appeals or revisions, creating a seamless team that can handle the case from filing through execution of the mandamus. Thus, the decision to retain a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is driven by the need for procedural precision, local expertise and the ability to navigate the High Court’s practices effectively, all of which are essential for securing the restoration of the seized property.

Question: What is the step‑by‑step procedural route from filing the writ petition to obtaining a mandamus order, and how does each step reflect the facts of the unlawful seizure?

Answer: The procedural journey begins with the preparation of a writ petition that sets out the factual background – the entry of out‑of‑state police into the Punjab warehouse, the seizure of the aromatic seed stock without a magistrate’s order, and the continued detention of the goods. The petition is filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the court admits it for consideration. Upon admission, the court issues a notice to the respondents – the police officers and the investigating agency – informing them of the allegations and inviting their written response. This stage is crucial because it forces the police to justify the legality of their action, which, in the present facts, they cannot substantiate. The next step is the hearing on the merits, where the accused, through a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, argues that the seizure violates constitutional rights and the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The factual defence of ownership is presented, but the court emphasizes that the procedural defect – lack of a magistrate’s order – is fatal. The court may also entertain an interim application for a temporary injunction to prevent further removal of the goods while the petition is pending; such an order aligns with the accused’s immediate need to protect his commercial inventory. After hearing both sides, the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the police to return the seized stock and to produce an inventory of any loss. The mandamus is a directed command that the police must obey, and it directly addresses the unlawful seizure by ordering restoration of possession. If the police comply, the matter concludes; if they refuse, the court can proceed to contempt proceedings. Each procedural step – filing, notice, hearing, interim relief and final mandamus – mirrors the factual scenario, ensuring that the core procedural defect is rectified irrespective of the pending substantive smuggling allegations.

Question: If the police continue to refuse compliance with the mandamus, what further High Court remedies are available and why does a factual defence alone not resolve the dispute?

Answer: Should the police disregard the mandamus, the accused can approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court for contempt of court proceedings, a powerful tool that compels obedience to a judicial order. The court may impose fines, attachment of property or even imprisonment of the errant officers until they comply, thereby reinforcing the authority of the mandamus. Additionally, the accused may file a revision petition under the appropriate provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a review of any adverse order that contradicts the mandamus, though the High Court’s original jurisdiction under article 226 remains paramount. The factual defence – asserting that the accused is not a smuggler or that the goods belong to him – does not address the core procedural violation because the law requires that the police first obtain statutory authority before seizing any property. Without a magistrate’s order, the seizure is illegal irrespective of the underlying smuggling allegation. Consequently, the court’s focus is on the legality of the police action, not on the truth of the smuggling claim. By invoking contempt and possible execution of the mandamus, the High Court ensures that the procedural defect is remedied and that the accused’s property rights are restored. The continued refusal by the police underscores the necessity of a robust judicial remedy beyond factual denial, highlighting that constitutional and procedural safeguards supersede the merits of the criminal charge at this stage. This approach guarantees that the accused is not left powerless while the substantive criminal trial proceeds, and it safeguards the integrity of the legal process against unlawful state action.

Question: Does the lack of a magistrate’s order or a valid warrant render the police entry and seizure ultra vires, and how should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court frame the jurisdictional argument in a writ petition?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that officers from a neighbouring state entered a locked warehouse in Punjab without producing any magistrate’s order or a warrant issued under the criminal procedure code. The statutory framework requires that a police officer may search or seize property only when a cognizable offence has been reported to the local police or when a magistrate has authorised the action. In the present case no such report was made to the Punjab police and no magistrate’s order was obtained. Consequently, the entry and seizure are ultra vires both of the police’s statutory powers and of the territorial jurisdiction of the neighbouring state’s officers. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must therefore begin the writ petition by establishing that the fundamental right to property and personal liberty has been infringed, invoking article 19 and article 31 of the constitution. The petition should request that the court examine the legality of the police action under article 226, emphasizing that the High Court has the power to intervene when a public authority acts beyond its legal limits. The argument should also highlight that inter‑state cooperation, while permissible, must still be anchored in a valid magistrate’s order, which is absent here. By demonstrating that the seizure was conducted without any statutory authority, the counsel can persuade the court to issue a mandamus directing the return of the seized goods and restraining any further unlawful seizure. The strategic focus on jurisdictional defect and constitutional violation strengthens the petition and aligns with precedent that courts will not allow a police force to bypass procedural safeguards, even in the context of inter‑state investigations.

Question: What evidentiary risks arise from the seized aromatic seed stock, and how can lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court protect the accused’s commercial interests while anticipating a possible criminal prosecution?

Answer: The seized stock constitutes both physical evidence and a financial asset of the accused. If the police retain the goods, they may be used to substantiate an offence of smuggling or illegal trade in a subsequent criminal trial. The prosecution can argue that the possession of the stock in the accused’s warehouse demonstrates control over contraband, thereby linking the accused to the alleged inter state network. However, the evidentiary chain is vulnerable because the seizure itself is tainted by procedural illegality. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court should therefore argue that any evidence derived from an unlawful seizure is inadmissible, invoking the doctrine that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights must be excluded. The counsel can also request a detailed inventory and forensic examination of the stock to establish that the goods are not contraband, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case. Simultaneously, the accused’s commercial interests can be protected by seeking an interim order for the restoration of the goods pending trial, ensuring that the business can continue operating and that the value of the inventory is preserved. The petition should also request that the court direct the police to account for any loss or damage incurred during custody, thereby creating a record that may be used to claim compensation if the seizure is later declared illegal. By foregrounding the procedural defect and demanding the return of the goods, the defence not only safeguards the accused’s property rights but also undermines the evidentiary foundation of any future criminal proceeding.

Question: How does the continued custody of the accused affect his right to liberty, and what relief can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court obtain to secure bail pending the writ proceedings?

Answer: The accused remains in police custody after the seizure, even though the underlying allegations have not yet been formally framed in a charge sheet. Continued detention without a valid charge infringes the right to liberty guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution. Moreover, the unlawful seizure of his property intensifies the hardship, as the accused is deprived of both his freedom and his livelihood. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can file an application for bail on the ground that the investigation lacks a lawful basis, emphasizing that the police have no jurisdiction to act in Punjab without a magistrate’s order. The bail application should argue that the accused is not a flight risk, has ties to the local community through his manufacturing unit, and that the alleged offence, if any, is not of a serious nature that warrants pre‑trial detention. The counsel can also cite the pending writ petition as a parallel remedy, indicating that the High Court will soon determine the legality of the police action, and that continued custody would render the writ ineffective. By securing bail, the accused can continue to manage his business, preserve evidence, and cooperate with the investigation without the coercive pressure of detention. The strategic advantage of obtaining bail lies in maintaining the accused’s ability to contest the seizure, gather documentary proof of ownership, and engage with the investigating agency on a more equal footing, thereby strengthening the overall defence posture.

Question: Does a pending revision petition under the provision for return of seized property preclude the filing of a writ under article 226, and how should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court address this procedural interaction?

Answer: The revision mechanism provides an ordinary route for challenging the refusal to return seized property, but it does not bar the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226. The legal principle is that the writ jurisdiction is available whenever a fundamental right is violated, even if another remedy exists. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court must therefore argue that the inter‑state seizure has already infringed the accused’s constitutional rights to property and liberty, creating an immediate need for relief that cannot wait for the slower revision process. The petition should request that the court stay any pending revision proceedings while it decides the writ, thereby preventing conflicting orders. By emphasizing the urgency of restoring the commercial stock to avoid irreversible loss, the counsel can persuade the court that the writ is the appropriate and necessary remedy. The argument should also note that the revision provision is intended for cases where the seizure was lawful but the return is denied, whereas here the seizure itself is unlawful. Consequently, the High Court’s intervention is justified to correct the procedural defect and to protect the accused’s rights. Addressing the procedural interaction in this manner demonstrates that the writ does not duplicate the revision but rather complements it by providing an immediate safeguard against an illegal deprivation.

Question: What strategic steps should the defence take to negotiate with the neighbouring state’s investigating agency while preserving the option to pursue higher‑court relief?

Answer: The defence should adopt a dual‑track approach that combines negotiation with readiness for judicial intervention. First, the counsel should formally request a meeting with the investigating agency to present documentary evidence of ownership, such as purchase invoices, warehouse lease agreements, and inventory logs, thereby establishing that the seized stock belongs to the accused and is not contraband. By offering to cooperate in a transparent verification process, the defence can demonstrate good faith and potentially persuade the agency to release the goods voluntarily. At the same time, the counsel must make clear that any agreement is contingent upon a written order from the appropriate magistrate, preserving the procedural requirement that the agency has previously ignored. Second, the defence should continue to prepare the writ petition, ensuring that all factual details, constitutional arguments, and requests for interim relief are meticulously drafted. The petition should include a clause that any settlement reached with the agency must be reported to the court, allowing the High Court to monitor compliance and intervene if the agreement is later breached. This strategy safeguards the accused’s commercial interests by seeking an early return of the stock, while also keeping the higher‑court remedy open as a fallback. By balancing negotiation with a robust legal filing, the defence maximizes the chances of a swift resolution without forfeiting the right to challenge the unlawful seizure before the High Court.