Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1305 (MP)

Durga Bus Service v. State of M. P.

2000-12-06

S.C.PANDEY

body2000
Short Note This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 27.4.2000 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge. Betul in Criminal Revision No. 39/2000 arising out of order dated 18.4.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Betul in Criminal Case No.360/2000. The petitioner claimed to him the owner of the Bus No. MP-04/H/8517. The vehicle was seized by the police for violation of section 66/192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 10.4.2000 at about 7.30 a.m. the Bus was plying between Betul-Itarsi Route. The case of the prosecution is that the bus which was plying with the passengers had a Board ‘Indore-Pandurna’ which shows that bus was being run between Indore-Padurna route, of which the driver had not valid permit. The Bus was seized for violation of section 66, of the Motor Vehicles Act which is punishable under section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereupon application was made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Betul who, by order dated 18.4.2000 rejected the application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the offence related to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently the police was authorised in exercise under section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to seize the bus. The remedy of the applicant was to take an action as provided under section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly the Court declined to gram custody of the aforesaid vehicle to the petitioner. The revision tiled against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed by the impugned order. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits plying of a motor vehicle without permit where the permit is required for carrying passengers or goods. Consequently the legislature has provided punishment under section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for violation of section 66. It is obvious that the offence is covered by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore one has to look into the provisions providing for seizure and release of a motor vehicles seized as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is obvious that the offence is covered by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore one has to look into the provisions providing for seizure and release of a motor vehicles seized as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act gives an authority to police officer or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government inter alia to seize a vehicle if it is driven without a valid permit in violation of the section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon seizure of the vehicle, there is remedy given to the applicant under sub-section (2) of section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and this remedy is to approach the concerned Transport Authority or any of the authorised in this behalf by the State Government. It is obvious that the petitioner cannot have two remedies. The Motor Vehicles Act is a special Act creating special offences and for its violation the procedures for seizure as well as procedure for release of the vehicle have been provided as per section 207 of the Act. By implication the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are outside. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the petitioner should approach to the concerned Transport Authority mentioned in section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act instead of the Criminal Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he was running from pillar to post as the Transport Authority has taken the view that the remedy lies with the Criminal Court. In view of the order of this Court it is for the Transport Authority mentioned in section 207(2) of the Act to exercise the powers under section 207(2) aforesaid. In case, the petitioner approaches on the basis of this order the Transport Authority may review its order if permissible by the law and decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously. The application is dismissed.