Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous petition is preferred against the order dated 19th July 1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for handing over the vehicle to him which has been retained by the Transport Authorities. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. RST 1635 (a jeep ). This vehicle was checked by the Assistant Sub -Inspector, and the registration - certificate, permit, insurance certificate and the token of taxes were not found kept in the vehicle. So, the vehicle was seized and on 19th July, 89, a complaint with regard to these deficiencies was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate Khetri. The very day when the complaint was filed the petitioner moved an application for handing over the vehicle to him on Supardginama as the alleged offences were of technical nature. The learned Magistrate did not agree with the petitioner and observed in his order that according to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for Short, the Acttt) the power of releasing vehicle rests with the Government. So he dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, who dismissed the same on the ground that no revision lies against such an order. Hence the petitioner has come to this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting quashed the order of the learned Magistrate. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner read over to me the complaint filed by the police in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri wherein it has been mentioned that when the vehicle was checked, it was not found having its registration certificate, permit, insurance-certificate and the tax-token and that it was carrying more than permissible passengers. When a complaint is filed in a court the vehicle seized by the police, becomes a part of that complaint and it is deemed that the vehicle is also in the court Such offences are of technical nature. In this case, if the petitioner was not having the above documents he was liable to be punished according to the Act. If he was carrying more than permissible passengers, or the driver driving the vehicle was under intoxication he was to be dealt with, according to law. In this case, if the petitioner was not having the above documents he was liable to be punished according to the Act. If he was carrying more than permissible passengers, or the driver driving the vehicle was under intoxication he was to be dealt with, according to law. But all the offences are not of that nature where the vehicle is to be retained either in the court or with the police. No doubt under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act, it has been mentioned that the State Authorities would pass necessary order for releasing the vehicle under Section 207 (1) a vehicle is checked, and when the documents mentioned in this section are not found available in that vehicle, the authorities have power to retain the vehicle. But once the documents are shown to the authorities and they are found to be valid ones then there is no justification in retaining the vehicle either in the police department or in the transport department. In this case, when the complaint was filed in the court if the documents were shown to the court at that time then I do not see any reason why the courts are debarred from passing an order releasing the vehicle either on Supardginamat or permanently, because the offences alleged against the petitioner are not of that nature which can compel the court to retain the vehicle. The person would face the trial and if he is found guilty he would be punished But for this offence for which the complaint was filed there is no justification to retain the vehicle and I find that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner. The reason given by the learned Magistrate in his order was that under Section 207 of the Act, the State Government has power to pass orders for the release of the vehicles. I feel pity on the learned Magistrate. The Act is enacted to regulate plying of vehicles and to see that offences are not committed while plying the vehicles. But, this Act 18 not meant for harassing the public. No doubt it is the duty of the owner of a vehicle to keep the documents ready in the vehicle and produce them at the time of checking. The Act is enacted to regulate plying of vehicles and to see that offences are not committed while plying the vehicles. But, this Act 18 not meant for harassing the public. No doubt it is the duty of the owner of a vehicle to keep the documents ready in the vehicle and produce them at the time of checking. But if for some reason the documents are not found with the driver or in the vehicle then the provision is that time is to be granted to the owner of the vehicle to show those documents to the authorities concerned and if they are found to be valid ones then there is no question of filing of any complaint against that person. But for other offences regarding carrying passengers above the permissible capacity or driving vehicle under intoxication certainly a complaint can be filed and the person would face the trial. But merely not keeping the documents in the vehicle at the time of checking and if they are shown later on I do not see any justification in harassing the public. If this is the interpretation, then the police department and the transport department have all powers to harass the public to any extent in the garb of this Section. The learned Magistrate too did not understand the objects and reasons of the Act. When the documents were with the owner and he was showing them to the Magistrate, I fail to understand, how the learned Magistrate passed the order that the State Government was empowered to release the vehicle. So the order of the learned Magistrate is an absurd order and without reasoning. Such orders which are passed without applying mind and without understanding the provisions of the Act, should not and cannot be permitted to remain in force. No doubt the learned Sessions Judge has correctly dismissed the revision petition because, no revision lies against interlocutory orders, but, certainly, this Court under its inhere it powers, is empowered to entertain such petitions and set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, which have been passed without understanding the provisions of law. ( 4 ) THE petition is therefore, accepted The order of the Judicial Magistrate Khetri dated 19th July 1989, is set aside. ( 4 ) THE petition is therefore, accepted The order of the Judicial Magistrate Khetri dated 19th July 1989, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to show all the documents to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate after seeing those documents shall pass necessary order releasing the vehicle, which be handed over to the petitioner. Petition accepted.