Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 103 (PAT)

Raj Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

1999-02-12

M.Y.EQBAL

body1999
Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 18.11.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Misc. Case No. 946(M)/97 whereby she has refused to release the vehicle seized by the Inforcement Sub-Inspector for the offences alleged to have been committed under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts leading to the instant application are that a Truck bearing number BER 3172 was seized by the Inforcemant Sub-Inspector on 18.8.1997 for the offences under Sections 192, 192A, 194 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was kept in the custody of Sachiwalaya police station. The petitioners case is that he is the real owner of the aforesaid truck and has got a valid registration certificate in his name. It is stated that the insurance certificate was produced before the Officer concerned for the release of the vehicle but the vehicle was not released. Subsequently, the Inforcement Sub-Inspector filed prosecution report against the driver and owner of the vehicle in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act and issued summons to the accused persons. The said criminal case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for conducting the trial and its disposal. The petitioner and the driver appeared before the Court and filed their bail application which was allowed on 16.10.1998. On 20.10.1998 the petitioner filed an application under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court where the case is pending for trial,for release of the vehicle claiming himself to be the real owner and in support of that all documents relating to the vehicle were produced in the Court. The Court below, after hearing the petitioner rejected the petition by the impugned order holding that the Court is not empowered to pass release order of the vehicle seized by the Transport authority. Hence this revision. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and failure in the exercise of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that when a prosecution report is submitted and a criminal case is instituted then it is the Criminal Court which can release the vehicle and there is no bar under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and failure in the exercise of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that when a prosecution report is submitted and a criminal case is instituted then it is the Criminal Court which can release the vehicle and there is no bar under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below misconstrued the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under : "(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seized and detained the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary, safe custody of the vehicle : Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof. (2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), i.e., owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or office may deem fit to impose." From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that the power of seizure of the vehicle is vested with the police officer or other person authorised by the State Government if there is reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 207 simply provides that where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained in the manner provided under sub-section (1) then the owner or person in-charge of the vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government for the release of the vehicle and the said authority may by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority may deem fit and proper. Section 208 of the said Act provides the procedure which shall be adopted by the Criminal Court for the summary disposal of the cases. There is no provision in the said Act which expressly exclude and oust the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to release the vehicle in the event it is seized under Section 207 of the said Act. It is true that when the vehicle is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act and kept in the custody of the police or the Transport Authority then the owner or the person incharge of the vehicle may approach the transport authority or any other officer specially empowered for the release of the vehicle. But once the transport authority files a complaint for prosecution report and submitted to the jurisdiction to the Criminal Court then it would be incorrect to say that the Criminal Court where the prosecution is pending is not empowered to pass an order for release of the vehicle. But once the transport authority files a complaint for prosecution report and submitted to the jurisdiction to the Criminal Court then it would be incorrect to say that the Criminal Court where the prosecution is pending is not empowered to pass an order for release of the vehicle. It is well settled that normally the Criminal Courts have jurisdiction unless it is completely ousted by any specific legislation. A similar question was involved in a case before the Supreme Court under the Essential Commodities Act. It was argued that in view of the provisions of Section 6-A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court have been ousted. Answering the question their Lordship in the case of State of M.P. v. Rameshwar Rathod, AIR 1990 SC 1849 observed : "It was next contended by the respondent before the High Court that the Criminal Court was empowered under Section 7 of the Act to confiscate the vehicle after due and proper inquiry and, therefore, the proceedings by the District Collector under Section 6 and Section 68 of the Act should be quashed. Reliance was placed on several decisions and authorities. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of The State v. Abdul Rasheed, AIR 1967 Mysore 231, Sri Bharat Mahey v. State of U.P., 1975 Cri LJ 890 (All) as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge in State of M.P. v. Basant Kumar, 1972 Jab LJ Short Note No. 99. On a consideration of the relevant authorities, the High Court came to the conclusion that the Criminal Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue that in view of the enactment of the provisions of Section 6A as well as Section 7 of the Act, it cannot be held that the Criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction. He submitted that in view of the enactment of these provisions, it would be useless to hold that the Criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting Section 6A read with Section 7 would be defeated. He submitted that in view of the enactment of these provisions, it would be useless to hold that the Criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting Section 6A read with Section 7 would be defeated. We are, however, unable to accept this contention because normally under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary Criminal Court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary implication of the new Act. In view of the language used and in the context in which this language has been used, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in coming to this conclusion that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the High Court was, therefore, right in passing the order under consideration and in the facts and circumstances of the case to return the vehicle to the respondent on furnishing the security. In the premise, the appeal must fall and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs." 5. Having regard to the discussions made above, I am of the definite view that after the seizure of the vehicle under Section 207 of the said Act if the prosecution is lodged in a Criminal Court then the Criminal Court has jurisdiction to pass appropriate order for the release of the vehicle. Besides the above, I am further of the view that if the vehicle is allowed to remain in police custody under open sky and unattended by the owner or any person on his behalf it may get damaged to an irreparable extent. In that view of the matter also, the vehicle can be released in favour of the petitioner after imposing conditions and furnishing security. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass a fresh order for the release of the vehicle after hearing Counsel appearing for the State or the Transport authority and subject to such conditions as the Court below may deem fit and proper.