Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 20 (PAT)

Punit Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2005-01-07

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused counter affidavit also. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on 16.12.2004 with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 4, District Transport Officer, Begusarai to release the bus of the petitioner bearing registration no. BR-39A-2398 immediately in view of the fact that the Sessions Court at Begusarai has already ordered for release of the said vehicle vide order dated 2.11.2004 passed in Cr. Revision No. 187/04 and in view of bonds furnished by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate as recorded in the order dated 8.11.2004 (Annexure-2). 3. The petitioners aforesaid motor vehicle, a bus, was seized on 6.9.2004 on the allegation that there were no papers available in the vehicle when the concerned D.T.O. made a demand for the same. A prosecution report was submitted before the Magistrate on 11.9.2004 leading to non FIR case No. 104/04 under Sections 177, 178, 192, 196, 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act and under Section 7(5), 20, 28(3) and 22(2) of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. As noticed above petitioner took steps and an order for release of the vehicle was passed by the revisional court, the court of Sessions, Begusarai on 2.11.2004. They required security bond for production of the vehicle as and when required was furnished and accepted by the concerned Magistrate on 8.11.2004 but when the petitioner approached the respondent no. 4 for release of the bus on 9.11.2004 the bus was not released on the pretext that rejease order of the Magistrate contained in Annexure-B mentioned that bus will be released if not required in any other case. According to respondent no. 4 the vehicle was required in another matter pending before respondent no. 4 himself. In support of the pendency of another Misc. Case No. 73/04, a letter/notice dated 27.10.2004 issued by respondent no. 4 to the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure D. Annexure-"D" refers to the fact that petitioners vehicle was seized on 6.9.2004 and thereafter Misc. Case No. 73/04 was also initiated. Vide Annexure-"D" the D.T.O, Begusarai asked petitioner to produce the documents relating to the vehicle before him within a week. 4. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances this Court finds that Misc. Case No. 73/04 was also initiated. Vide Annexure-"D" the D.T.O, Begusarai asked petitioner to produce the documents relating to the vehicle before him within a week. 4. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances this Court finds that Misc. Case No. 73/04 relates to the same occurrence leading to seizure of the vehicle on 6.9.2004 for which a non-FIR case bearing no. 104/04 was reported to the Magistrate and in which release order has been passed by learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and perusing all the papers relating to the vehicle produced by the petitioner. No other or independent offence is pending vide Misc. Case No. 73/04 which appears to have been initiated after seizure made on 6.9.2004. In such circumstances pendency of a Miscellaneous proceeding before the respondent no. 4 for production of documents relating to the vehicle cannot be a valid ground for refusing release of the vehicle in compliance of order of release passed by a competent court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a photo copy of a Chalan dated 8.9.2004 showing that Rs. 9,850/- has been deposited by the petitioner towards road tax of the vehicle on 8.9.2004 for the period 1.9.2004 to 30th September, 2004. Learned counsel for the State has submitted in this regard that the said Chalan cannot be a proof of the fact that entire tax has been paid. To this learned counsel for the petitioner has replied by referring to a receipt dated 9.9.2004 granted by the District Transport Officer, Katihar showing that tax for the period 1.9.2004 to 30.9.2004 amounting to Rs. 9,850/- has been paid in respect of the petitioners bus. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such receipt is granted only when tax is paid as per requirement of law. 5. In the present writ proceeding this Court is not concerned with determination of the issue whether petitioner has paid the requisite amount of road tax or not. This can be decided by respondent no. 4 or any other departmental authority in accordance with law. At present the issue is whether the bus of the petitioner should be released in compliance of the order of the Sessions Court or not. This Court is satisfied that the order of the Sessions Court must be carried out by respondent no. This can be decided by respondent no. 4 or any other departmental authority in accordance with law. At present the issue is whether the bus of the petitioner should be released in compliance of the order of the Sessions Court or not. This Court is satisfied that the order of the Sessions Court must be carried out by respondent no. 4 by allowing actual release of the vehicle when the bond as per order of the Sessions court has been found satisfactory by the learned Magistrate. Pendency of the Miscellaneous proceeding no. 73/04 shall not stand in the way of release of the bus. It goes without saying that respondent no. 4 may take final decision on the Miscellaneous proceeding in accordance with law and in case his orders are not followed by the petitioner and petitioner is found to be running the vehicle against the provisions of law then respondent no. 4 may file appropriate petition before the concerned court of the Magistrate for return of the vehicle to his custody and it will be for the Magistrate to pass orders in accordance with law. This observation is in keeping with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalai Desai V/s. The State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 . 6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Respondent No. 4 must actually release the vehicle forthwith within 24 hours from today.