Point of Law: It is true that in terms of Section 50 of the Act, the transfer of a vehicle ought to be registered within 30 days of the sale. Section 50(1) of the Act obliges the transferor to report the fact of transfer within 14 days of the transfer. In case the vehicle is sold outside State, the period within which the transfer ought to be reported gets extended. On the other hand, the transferee is also obliged to report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transferee has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. Section 50 thus prescribes timelines within which the transferor and the transferee are required to report the factum of transfer. As per sub-section (3) of said Section 50, if there be failure to report the fact of transfer, fine could be imposed and an action under Section 177 could thereafter be taken if there is failure to pay the amount of fine. These timelines and obligations are only to facilitate the reporting of the transfer. It is not as if that if an accident occurs within the period prescribed for reporting the said transfer, the transferor is absolved of the liability.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Allahabad dated 02.05.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2019, dismissing the said revision and affirming an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad dated 11.12.2018 in Case Crime No. 682 of 2014, under Section 279/304A I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad (now Prayagraj). The learned Magistrate by his order, last mentioned, has required the petitioner on his application seeking release of his car, bearing registration No. U.P. 70 CA 9417, to furnish a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash or in the form of bank security, as a condition precedent to the consideration of his application.

2. Meva Lal, the petitioner is a retired government servant. He is aged about 74 years. He was an employee with the District Collectorate, Allahabad (now Prayagraj). Meva Lal purchased a second-hand car on 18.04.2017 from Mrs. Archana Mohan w/o Sudhanshu Asthana r/o 573-A/4, Bailly Colony, Rajapur, Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj. The car is a Hyundai i10. He purchased the said vehicle for a price of Rs. 2 lacs. Meva Lal applied to the Registering Authority under Sub Section (1) of Section 50 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requesting that transfer of ownership may be entered in his name, in the certificate of registration. This application was accepted by the Registering Authority and his name was entered in the certificate of registration dated 12th March, 2013, on 18.04.2017. Meva Lal also took out an insurance policy that covers inter alia 3rd party risks. This policy was purchased from the United India Insurance Company Limited. It was issued on 09.03.2018. The policy was valid from 10.03.2018 to 09.03.2019.

3. Meva Lal says that on 15.09.2018 at 5:45 in the evening hours, the S.H.O., Civil Lines along with one Deena Nath, a Sub Inspector and four police constables were about their task of checking vehicles at the Subhash Chauraha, Civil Lines, Prayagraj. Sub Inspector Deena Nath signalled Meva Lal’s car to stop and asked him to show its papers. Meva Lal claims that he produced all documents relating to the car required under the law, but Deena Nath had something else in mind. He demanded some illegal gratification. Meva Lal firmly declined. Annoyed, Deena Nath Yadav seized Meva Lal’s car. Meva Lal says that on his demand, as to why his car had been seized, S.I. Deena Nath Yadav told him that the vehicle was wanted in connection with Case Crime No. 682 of 2014, under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad (now Prayagraj). Meva Lal further says that he asked the Sub Inspector to show him a copy of the FIR, so that he may know that his car was indeed wanted in connection with that crime, but the police officer declined that request. Meva Lal secured a copy of the FIR under reference, which is one registered on 16.10.2014. It presently bears Case Crime No. 682 of 2014, under Section 279, 304A I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad, but earlier, it was registered as Case Crime No. 632 of 2014 at the same police station. Meva Lal asserts with reference to the contents of the said FIR that it does not show that his vehicle is mentioned there or otherwise wanted.

4. In these circumstances, Meva Lal made an application seeking release of his car to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The accident subject matter of Case Crime No. 682 of 2014 was a fatal accident, where one Viswajeet Sachan s/o Sadhu Ram Sachan lost his life. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 11.12.2018, required the applicant to furnish in cash a sum of Rs. 5 lacs or a bank security worth the said amount, to be appropriated towards payment of compensation that may be awarded in the claim by the deceased’s heirs, relating to the accident. The Magistrate ordered that the release application would be considered on merits, once the aforesaid deposit was made good or security furni