Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 598 (JHR)

Tata Motors Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-28

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the part of the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in connection with Pithoria, P.S. Case No.42 of 2016 (G.R.No.2126 of 2016) whereby and whereunder the vehicle of which the petitioner is the manufacturer and the owner has been ordered to be released on the condition that the owner of the vehicle shall produce the vehicle as and when required and shall not sale or change the colour and make of the vehicle till the disposal of the case. 3. The first information report was instituted in which it was alleged that a information was received that a white colour new chasis truck brought from Tata was sold in Pithoria area. On reaching the place, the chasis was detected and the driver of the truck was apprehended who disclosed that the vehicle was to be delivered to Hapur but with a malafide intention, he had changed his route and was planning to sell the chasis. Based on the aforesaid allegation Pithoria P.S. Case No.42 of 2016 was instituted. 4. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Tata Motors Limited is a manufacturer of the chasis of truck and the trucks after manufacturing are sent to various regions from where they are dispatched to various destination. It has been stated that admittedly the petitioner being the owner of the chasis which was seized had filed the release application and vide order dated 11.05.2016 the said chasis was released in favour of the petitioner company albeit on certain conditions. Learned senior counsel submits that the vehicle in question was a B.S.-III vehicle and in view of the notification of the Government of India, Mass Emission Standards has been re-evaluated and B.S.-IV is to come into effect in the State of Jharkhand also from 1stApril, 2017. If the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate is not modified, the petitioner shall not be able to sale the vehicle which will lead to suffering a huge loss by the company. If the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate is not modified, the petitioner shall not be able to sale the vehicle which will lead to suffering a huge loss by the company. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention with respect to modifying the terms and conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate has referred to the judgment in the case of General Insurance Council and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (W.P. (C) No.14 of 2008) (date of disposal i.e. 19.04.2010). 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. It appears that there is no dispute with respect to ownership of the vehicle having temporary registration no.JH05AO 881J16. The petitioner being the owner and manufacturer of the vehicle in question has rightly been allowed release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate while releasing the vehicle vide order dated 11.05.2016 has put certain terms and conditions that the owner was required to produce the vehicle as and when necessitated and it was further directed that there should not be sale or a change with respect to the colour and the make of the vehicle till the disposal of the case. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the terms and conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner which contains a notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India in which a directive has been issued to the various States for complying with Mass Emission Standards with respect to B.S.-IV as enumerated in the said notification itself. B.S.-IV is to come into force all over the country from 1stApril, 2017. The petitioner apprehends that since the vehicle which is the subject matter of the criminal case, the Mass Emission Standards is of B.S.-III it will preclude the petitioner company from selling the vehicle on and from 1stApril, 2017. Only vehicle B.S.-IV Mass Emission Standards will be sold in the country. In the case of General Insurance Council and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra) apart from the condition with respect to the release of the vehicle as indicated in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. Only vehicle B.S.-IV Mass Emission Standards will be sold in the country. In the case of General Insurance Council and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra) apart from the condition with respect to the release of the vehicle as indicated in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, further terms and conditions have been indicated which suggests that the physical production of the vehicle could be dispensed with by taking necessary photographs of the vehicle duly authenticated and certified and the photographs be used as secondary evidence during the trial. 7. Taking a cue from the judgment and considering the fact that the petitioner company will not be able to sale the vehicle since it relates to B.S.-III Mass Emission Standards which will became obsolete from 1st April, 2017, the terms and conditions as indicated by the learned Magistrate in the order dated 11.05.2016 needs to be modified. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in connection with Pithoria, P.S. Case No.42 of 2016 (G.R.No.2126 of 2016) is modified to the extent that the photographs of the vehicle shall be taken which shall also been duly authenticated and certified and the said photographs shall be produced before the learned trial court by the petitioner expeditiously. It is also indicated that the photographs which shall be produced before the learned trial court shall be kept on record which shall be used as secondary evidence during the trial. 9. The petitioner is not required for physical production of the vehicle in question and after the formalities as indicated above are complied with, the petitioner shall be at liberty to sale the vehicle. The impugned order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in connection with Pithoria, P.S. Case No.42 of 2016 (G.R.No.2126 of 2016) is modified to the extent indicated above. However, it is also made clear that the present order has been passed based on the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 10. This application stands disposed of.