Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1188 (RAJ)

Jitendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the Panchnama dated 1.12.2011 and the notice dated 22.12.2011 issued by the Officers of the Transport Department, Sri Ganganagar to the petitioner in relation to the plying of the Bus No. HP48-9786 without proper documents. 2. Shri B.L. Maheshwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.R. Choudhary, Advocate, submits that the seizure of the petitioner's bus has been done in this case for want of registration certificate, insurance certificate, time table, permit and non-deposit of tax. He further submits that for the infringements of the aforesaid nature, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, he submits that the seizure of the motor vehicle i.e. bus has been made in relation to an offence committed by the petitioner and, therefore, the criminal Court has jurisdiction to consider the release of the vehicle while exercising the powers prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The prayer, which has been made in the misc. petition is reproduced herein below. "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this miscellaneous petition may kindly be allowed, Panchnama No. 32521656 dated 1.12.2011 Annexure 2/notice No. TR/Gang/Challan/2011/8485 dated 22.12.2011 Annexure 4 be kindly quashed and set aside." 4. After having considered the arguments at the bar and on going through the material available on record, it is manifest that the misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the Panchnama (Annexure 2), whereby the vehicle was being found to be plied without proper documents and the notice issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that any prosecution of the petitioner has been initiated under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act till date. In any event, the infringement under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages the punishment of the driver of the vehicle for the contraventions, which are covered under the said provision. There is no consequence in this Section, which provides for the seizure or the confiscation of the vehicle in question. The petitioner admittedly was not driving the vehicle when the same was seized. Thus, even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that Section 192-A of the Act could have been invoked, the petitioner does not get any advantage out of the same. The petitioner admittedly was not driving the vehicle when the same was seized. Thus, even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that Section 192-A of the Act could have been invoked, the petitioner does not get any advantage out of the same. That apart, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question has not been seized in relation to any criminal case, therefore, criminal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any prayer for the release of the vehicle in question, Whatever remedies, the petitioner has, have to be availed in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act only. 5. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the misc. petition is bereft of any force. The same is, accordingly, rejected and consequently, the stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******