Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 408 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SYED ABDUL RAHIM

1987-12-02

KULKARNI

body1987
KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) SRI C. H. Jadhav, High Court Government Pleader, for the petitioner and Sri C. V. Nagesh for the respondent submitted that the matter itself may be heard finally on the merits. Accordingly, arguments on the final merits of the revision are heard and it is disposed of finally. ( 2 ) THIS is a revision by the State against the order dated 18th November, 1987 passed by the First Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Banglore City, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 132/1987 setting aside the order dated 7-10-1987 passed by the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Banglore City, in Crime No. 224/1987 refusing to release the vehicle in question to the present respondent. ( 3 ) THE material facts are as under: The Motor Vehicles Inspector on 4-9- 1987 seized the vehicle Bus. MNA 786 alleging that the Registration Certificate held by the respondent was a forged one and that he was using the vehicle on the road without a genuine R. C. or without holding the permit and he handed over the said bus along with the report to the Central Police Station. On receiving- the said report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the vehicle, the Central Police registered a case in Crime No. 224/1987 under Section 420 I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE respondent filed an application under Section 451 Cr. P. C. for the interim custody of the vehicle or the return of the vehicle to him. The State opposed the same. The Magistrate rejected the request of the respondent for release of the vehicle. The present respondent approached the Sessions Judge, with Criminal Revision Petition No. 132/1987. The First Addi. City Civil and Session Judge Banglore City; set aside the order made by the Magistrate and ordered return of the vehicle to the respondent. The State being aggrieved has come up with the present revision. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel Sri Nagesh for the respondent submitted that the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order made by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Banglore, refusing to issue the road permit and that it had directed the Authority to issue the permit and that the R. T. O. Rajajinagar, itself has effected the change of the address in the R. C. book and therefore, the seizure was illegal. The State relied upon a letter sent by the Director of Transport, Manipur, that the Bus MNA 786 was a local Bus standing in the name of one Sri Md. Basiruddin and was being used on the road of Manipur itself. It is unfortunate that the R. T. O Rajajinagar, Banglore, without making a detailed enquiry into the matter while effecting the change of address should have changed the address. In view of the letter sent by the Transport Authority at Manipur, it becomes clear that Bus MNA 786 is a local bus operating in Manipur itself. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the R. T. O. , Rajajinagar, in effecting, the change of address in the R. C. Book appears to be not proper. It should not be forgotten by the Authorities concerned that before changing the address a detailed enquiry has to be made by them into the matter. Without any enquiry being made, the R. T. O. Rajajinagar, has effected the change of address in the R. C. Book. In view of the letter received from the Transport Authority at Manipur the Bus bearing Registration No. MNA 786, which is a local bus is stand operating in that State. There cannot be two buses bearing the same registration number operating or running on the road. Therefore, at present, the prosecution case that the R. C. book supposedly held by the Accused appears to be spurious cannot be thrown out as absolutely groundless. ( 6 ) THE learned -Counsel Sri Nagesh, referred me to T. C. Gopalan Nair v. P. Kelu1 and it reads as From the provisions relating to the registration of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the registration certificate is an essential necessity before any motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour the certificate of registration is issued, would be the owner thereof and would be entitled to its custody. The power to order for custody of property given to a Magistrate under Section 516a Cr. P. C. should not be used to determine the ownership of property. The power to order for custody of property given to a Magistrate under Section 516a Cr. P. C. should not be used to determine the ownership of property. Where the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle stood in the name of the petitioner-accused, held that it was in the circumstances of the case the Magistrate was wrong in directing the vehicle to be-handed over to the custody or the complainant and in giving a finding that the entry in the certificate of registration in favour of the petitioner was not a genuine onett. It is no doubt true that whenever the R. C. is standing in the name of a particular person, the vehicle should be returned to him. But, it is already stated above that there are two vehicles bearing same registration number, one in Manipur and the other in Karnataka State. Therefore, the entry in the R. C. book on the face of it appears to be rather suspicious. It would be rather dangerous to permit the vehicle to be released in favour of the respondent who wants it for the purpose of operating on the rod. Therefore, the facts appearing in the said case are different from the ones in the present case. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge bas stated that the Motor Vehicles Inspector had no power at all under Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to seize the vehicle and therefore, the seizure of the vehicle was bad in taw and on this ground also, he ordered the release of the vehicle in question to the present respondent. Section 129-A reads as: Any police officer authorised in this behalf or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 22 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 42 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route in which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the tcmporary safe Custody of the vehicle. Rule 366 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 reads as: Officers authorised to seize and detain vehicles Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector of Police deputed from the State Police Department to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an Inspector of Motor Vehicles may, if he has reason to believe that a Motor Vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route in which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. Thus, under Rule 366 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has also got the jurisdiction to seize the vehicle. Therefore, the approach made by the Sessions Judge for orderingrelease of the vehicle in favour of the respondent, in this connection, runs contrary of Rule 366. Rule 366 makes it clear that the Motor Vehicles Inspector has got the jurisdiction to seize the vehicle. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel Sri Nagesh then referred me to the proviso of Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and it reads as: Provided further that where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under this section for contravention of the provisions of Section 22, such vehicle shall not be released to the owner unless and until he produces a valid certificate of registration under this Act in respect of that vehicle. Sri Nagesh constructed an argument, that it is only if the vehicle is seized under Section 129. A then it may not he released to the owner unless and until he produces the Certificate of Registration. Sri Nagesh constructed an argument, that it is only if the vehicle is seized under Section 129. A then it may not he released to the owner unless and until he produces the Certificate of Registration. The report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, which has been given to the Central Police Station goes to show that he seized the vehicle in question as there was no proper and valid registration certificate in favour of the person as it was being used without an actual legal permit being issued. Therefore, the seizure made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is only under Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the said argument advanced by the learned Counsel in this connection is also rejected. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has ordered the issue of permit in favour of the respondent. A simple issuance of the order does not mean that the permit had been already issued. It is for the Authorities to challenge the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, also by taking further steps unless the actual permit is issued. The Owner or possessor of the vehicle will not have the right to use the vehicle on the road, until the permit is issued. Therefore, admittedly as yet the permit is not issued. Therefore, any use of such vehicle without the actual issuance of the permit would be in contravention of Sections 42 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 10 ) THEREFORE under the circumstances, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is manifestly erroneous. Therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Judge setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate is set aside. The order passed by the Magistrate refusing to release the vehicle to the respondent is affirmed. ( 11 ) THE revision is allowed. ( 12 ) SRI Nagesh for the respondent submitted that the respondent has already paid tax in question in regard to the Bus in question and that it has been accepted, If such a tax has been paid, as now tried to be made out by Nagesh, it may only be said to be wrong payment or an attempt to legalise the illegal things, which are alleged to have been done by the respondent. If he has made any such payment, he may resort to such legal procedure as may be permissible to him. Revision allowed.