2005 Supreme(Bom) 962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
AKSHAYKUMAR s/o UTTAMLAL JAISWAL
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Decided on 28.7.2005

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 192 - Seizure of documents. - Seizure of documents of registration of vehicle for purpose of verification with original permit of contract carriage, not permissible. - The petitioners sought relief in the nature of directions to restrain the respondents from detaining the vehicles under the garb of taking action under Sections 66 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also to restrain the respondents from seizing the documents of registration and other papers relating to the vehicles otherwise than permissible under the provisions of the said Act. It is their case that the officers of the police and Transport Office accompanied by the employees of MSRTC stop and detain the buses under the garb that the vehicles are being used as stage carriage when the permit is for contract carriage and in the process, apart from illegally detaining the buses, seize the documents of the buses. The power to detain vehicle by the police, cannot be exercised as a matter of course. There must be reason to believe that the vehicle is being used for the purpose otherwise than for which the vehicle is permitted to be used or may be used. The police officer having reason to believe that a vehicle holding permit for contract carriage is used as a stage carriage or vice-versa would definitely be entitled to detain the vehicle for the purpose of investigation. Detention cannot be allowed to transform into seizure of the vehicle. If the vehicle is detained for unduly long period, it would virtually amount to seizure of the vehicle for that period and certainly such power is not contemplated. For the purpose of seizure of the vehicle, there is a specific procedure and the authorities will have to follow the said procedure. This should not be construed to mean that the vehicles even used for illegally for carrying of arms or transporting criminals or contraband drugs or articles cannot be detained. But such power would not include detention of the vehicle merely on the ground of violation of conditions of permit relating to use of the vehicle. The petitioners are justified in contending that merely because the police authorities have apprehension about use of contract carriage vehicle as stage carriage vehicle, that by itself would not empower the authorities to detain the vehicles for unduly long period. Once the authority is satisfied about such use of the vehicle on inspection of the vehicle, certainly it would be necessary for the police authority to cease to detain the vehicle any further. In any case, the respondents have categorically stated on oath that the petitioners’ vehicles were not detained by the respondents. There is no counter by the petitioners to the said statement on oath made by the respondents. Being so, it cannot be presumed merely on the basis of allegations of the petitioners that their vehicles were in fact detained by the respondents. However, there is clear admission on the part of the respondents in their affidavit that the documents were seized for the purpose of verification with the original permit. Petitioners are justified in contending that in the absence of specific denial of the respondents that such officers of MSRTC did not take part in the inspection squad, the statement in that regard made by the petitioners on oath is to be accepted to have been established. The respondents are held to be not entitled to detain vehicles otherwise than as provided under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder read with the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above. The respondents are also not entitled to seize the documents except when such documents are relating to an offence believed to have been committed. 1999 (4) All MR 138 : AIR 2000 SC 725; 1987 (1) SCC 101 - Relied on.

       MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988) - Section 213 - Seizure of documents. - Seizure of documents for verification with original is held to be illegal document can only be seized in commission of any offence. Authorities failed to explain why verification was necessary.