Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Girish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.

2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Case No. 1511/2010, under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby he has rejected the application moved by the petitioner to release his vehicle seized by the A.R.T.O., Ambedkar Nagar under Section 207 of the Act.

3. The only question involved for consideration before this Court is whether the vehicle under release seized by Assistant Transport Officer, Ambedkar Nagar under Section 207 of the Act can be released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which can be decided at this stage. Therefore, the petition is being decided at this stage.

4. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar under Section 457 of the Code for release of his vehicle which was seized by Assistant Transport Officer, Ambedkar Nagar under Section 207 of the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the application of the applicant called a report from the A.R.T.O., Ambedkar Nagar but he neither submitted his report nor any challan. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, did not think it proper to release the vehicle in favour of the applicant. He, therefore, by the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 rejected the application of the applicant. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 457 of the Code lays down the provision for releasing the property seized by the police. The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle under release. He, therefore, moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of his vehicle. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without assigning any reason has rejected his application by the impugned order which is bad in the eye of law.Since the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, the same be ordered to be released in his favour.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has placed reliance on the cases Phool Chandra Vs. Assistant Regional Transport Oficer (A/s) Banda and Ors. decided by this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30978 of 1996 and Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Haryana reported in [(1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 491] decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. Sri R.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. opposed the petition and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

8. Sri Dwivedi submits that Section 207 (2) of the Act specifically provides that when any vehicle is seized under under Sub Section (1) of Section 207 of the Act by the ARTO or RTO, the registered owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government? under Section 207 (2) of the Act. He cannot move application for release of the vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sri Dwivedi has argued that in catena of judgments, it has been held by the Division Bench as well as Single Judge of this Court that the vehicle seized by the ARTO or RTO under Section 207 of the Act may be released only by the Transport Authority or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf. The impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar is, therefore, pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document