The court affirmed its power to release a vehicle on superdari and clarified the requirement for permit countersigning by the State Transport Authority of the destination state.

K.S.Kumaran, J.

1. The counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been issued a valid permit to run his motor vehicle from Khuban (in the Punjab State) to Chandigarh that his permit is also valid till April, 2000 and that in spite of this, his vehicle has been impounded. The petitioner had moved to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh for release of his vehicle (Bus No. PB-10-9811) on superdari. The learned J.M.I.C., Chandigarh by his order dated 12.11.1997, has held that there was no justification for release of the bus on superdari since it would tantamount to interference with the powers of the State Transport Authority, Chandigarh and that the petitioner may approach the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh for compounding the offence. The petitioner is alleged to have violated the provisions of Sections 192-A/207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

2. The petitioner aggrieved by this order, has approached this Court by means of this Criminal Revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the fact that the petitioner has got a valid permit his vehicle should not have been impended and at any rate, the vehicle should have been released on superdari without referring the petitioner to the State Transport Authority for the purpose of compounding the offence. Notice was issued to the standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides. The contention of the learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh is that in view of sub-section (2) of section 207, the petitioner could have approached the Transport Authority for release of the vehicle. But that does not mean that the power of the court concerned to release the vehicle on superdari is in any way taken by either section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out any provision under which the courts power to release the vehicle on superdari has been barred. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court can certainly release the vehicle on superdari if the court is convinced about the other aspects of the case.

4. But the learned counsel for the respondent contends that under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the permit had to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the U.T. Chandigarh inasmuch as the permit has been issued by the State Transport Authority of the Punjab State. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the motor vehicle in question covers only a distance of 8 kilometers within the U.T. Chandigarh and, therefore, it is not necessary to have the permit counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of U.T. Chandigarh. Therefore, the questions that have to be considered by the J.M.I.C., Chandigarh are mainly as to whether the permit issued to the petitioner requires countersigning by the State Transport Authority of U.T. Chandigarh and if so, whether there has been such a counter signing and if not, as to what offence is committed by the petitioner. If any opinion is expressed on these points, it may affect a fair trial of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, I do not wish to express any opinion on these points.

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner very fairy undertakes not to ply the bus in question within the Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of three weeks.

Taking into consideration the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner, I order that the bus in question shall be released to the petitioner on superdari subject to the following conditions : (1) That the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash as security towards fine that may be imposed in case the petitioner is found guilty.

(2) That the petitioner shall not change the colour or (sic) of the motor vehicle.

(3) That the petitioner shall also produce the vehicle before the Court whenever Court summon