Judicial Magistrates have jurisdiction to decide on the release of seized vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

1. - The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are that the petitioner is the permit holder of Bus No. RJ-07/0569, which was issued on 15.12.200... This bus was seized on 22.6.2000 in the morning under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 188 and Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 on the allegations that the vehicle was found plying without permit at the time of checking and road tax for the year 1997-98 was found due as per the A.G. audit objection. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner. Released the said bus on Supardginama under Section 457 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26.7.2000. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the petitioner has preferred this petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as also the learned public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the vehicle has been seized for the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and it has been held by this Court that in such matter the Judicial Magistrates have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application for release of the vehicle on Supardginama. Reliance has been made to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 400/98 (Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 24.7.1999 & S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 150/2000 (M/s. Birla Cement Works v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 28.4.2000 . Therefore, it was erroneous on the part of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate not to decide the application on merits, and to dismiss it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

3. It is clear from the allegations that the bus has been seized for the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it was being plied without permit as well as violation of Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of the petitioner on merits. It could not be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. in the result, the impugned order dated 6.7.2000 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Bikaner to decide the application of the petitioner on merits after hearing the concerned parties. The parties shall appear before the said Court on 16.8.2000.

*******