SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Raj) 246

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
Noor Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Kumar Sahdadpuri, for Petitioner S.R. Yadav, Govt. Advocate for State

Judgement Key Points

Key Points

  • The core question is whether provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. apply to vehicles seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (!)

  • Petitioner's jeep was seized by Motor Vehicle Inspector under Section 207 MV Act for lacking registration certificate, OTT, insurance, driving licence, permit; used as hire vehicle with 11 passengers. (!)

  • Petitioner's application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release was dismissed by Magistrate; hence petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed. (!) [17019990060010]

  • Petitioner argued Magistrate must release vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C.; documents available, passengers were personal members. [17019990060002]

  • State argued Section 457 Cr.P.C. not applicable to seizures under MV Act. [17019990060003]

  • Section 207(1) MV Act empowers authorized persons to seize vehicle used without registration/permit or in contravention; option to seize RC instead. (!) (!)

  • Under Section 207(2) MV Act, owner/person in charge may apply to transport authority or authorized officer for release, subject to conditions. (!)

  • Section 66(1) MV Act requires permit for transport vehicles in public places. (!) (!)

  • Violation of Section 66(1) is offence under Section 192A MV Act, punishable with fine/imprisonment. [17019990060007] (!) (!)

  • Section 208 MV Act provides for summary disposal: accused may plead guilty via money order; no further proceedings if complied. [17019990060008] (!) (!)

  • Section 17 MV Taxation Act allows seizure for unpaid tax; non-transport vehicles releasable on bond up to Rs.500/-. (!) (!) (!)

  • Non-payment of tax is offence under Section 11 MV Taxation Act; cognizable by Magistrate 2nd Class or above. (!) (!) (!)

  • Section 457 Cr.P.C. applicable if seizure reported to Magistrate and property not produced in enquiry/trial; jurisdiction arises even if reported by applicant. (!)

  • Legal summary: Seizure under MV Act for permit violation; owner has option under 207(2) MV Act or 457 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

  • Section 4(2) Cr.P.C.: Offences under other laws dealt with per Cr.P.C., subject to special enactments; MV Act does not exclude Cr.P.C. for disposal of property. (!) (!) (!)

  • MV Act silent on procedure if accused does not plead guilty under Section 208; Cr.P.C. summary trial provisions apply. (!) (!)

  • Jurisdiction of Magistrate under 457 Cr.P.C. not ousted by MV Act; owner has two options for release: Magistrate or transport authority. (!) (!) (!)

  • Circulars issued administratively cannot curtail judicial powers of Magistrate; guidelines only. (!) (!)

  • Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted for fresh decision on 457 Cr.P.C. application. (!)


Honble SHARMA, J.–Core question that cropped up for consideration in the instant petition is, as to whether the provisions contained in section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.P.C.) are attracted in respect of vehicles seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the M.V Act).

(2). This question emerges in the circumstances set out below -

(i) The petitioner is the registered owner of Jeep No. RJ 29 C 0058 on November 11, 1997 the Motor Vehicle Inspector Dausa seized the said jeep under Sec. 207 of the M.V Act on the allegation that it was found plying by driver Nasirkhan without having Registration Certificate OTT (one time tax) Insurance Certificate, Driving Licence and Permit Certificate. Eleven passengers were found travelling and it was being used on hire reward. Seizure memo of the Jeep was prepared by the Inspector and it was got signed by the Driver Nasir Khan.

(ii) An application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle, before the learned Special Mobile Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur. The said application was dismissed vide order dated January 7, 1998.

(iii) Against this ord
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top