2020 Supreme(All) 735
J.J.MUNIR
Meva Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Jai Prakash Rao
Judgement Key Points
- Petition under Article 227 challenges orders requiring Rs. 5 lakhs cash deposit or bank security for release of car (Reg. No. UP 70 CA 9417) seized in connection with Case Crime No. 682/2014 under Sections 279/304A IPC. (!) [25001071660001]
- Petitioner Meva Lal, aged 74, retired government servant, purchased the Hyundai i10 car second-hand on 18.04.2017 from Archana Mohan for Rs. 2 lakhs; transfer registered same day; obtained insurance policy valid 10.03.2018 to 09.03.2019 covering third-party risks. [25001071660001]
- Car seized on 15.09.2018 at Subhash Chauraha by police, claimed linked to 2014 accident FIR dated 16.10.2014; FIR describes only Pulsar motorcycle (Reg. No. UP 70 BN 8519) as offending vehicle, no mention of any car. [25001071660002]
- Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.12.2018 and Additional Sessions Judge on 02.05.2019 upheld condition of Rs. 5 lakhs security under Rule 203-B(3) UP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, for fatal accident vehicle release. [25001071660003][25001071660004]
- At time of accident (16.10.2014), owner was Archana Mohan, not petitioner; confirmed in Investigating Officer's report (SR Form 48 Ka dated 28.11.2018, column 8). [25001071660013]
- Section 50 MV Act requires transfer reporting within timelines (14/30 days), but failure leads only to fine under Section 177; does not absolve original registered owner of liability if accident occurs before registration. [judgement_subject] (Point of Law)
- Rule 203-B(3) UP Motor Vehicles Rules mandates security from owner/registered owner for release of uninsured fatal accident vehicle, to cover potential claims tribunal award. [25001071660016] (!)
- Rule 203-B(3) applies only to owner/registered owner at time of accident, not subsequent bona fide transferee with no connection to accident; transferee cannot furnish policy or security for prior accident. [25001071660017][25001071660020]
- Liability to satisfy claims tribunal award rests with registered owner at time of accident per definition under MV Act; subsequent registered owner not liable. [25001071660018][25001071660020]
- Lower courts erred in applying Rule 203-B(3) to petitioner as current registered owner; petition allowed, orders set aside, CJM directed to decide release application without security within 3 weeks. [25001071660021][25001071660022]
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 t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
