The court emphasized the necessity for permits under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the power to release seized vehicles under Section 207 is conferred on specified authorities, excluding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Dhirendra Mishra, J.

1. Cr.M.P. No. 583/07, Cr.M.P. No. 584/07 and Cr.M.P. No. 585/07 preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being disposed of by this common order as by these petitions the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, Korba in Criminal Revision Nos. 53/07, 55/07 and 54/07 respectively whereby the revision petitions have been dismissed and orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba rejecting his applications under Section 457 of the Cr.PC for interim custody of the vehicles seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been upheld.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the above petitions are that vehicle Nos. C.G. 07-Z.B./1641, C.G. 10-Z.B./1067 and C.G.04-Z.B./1440 were seized by the Road Transport Officer, Korba for the offence under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for brevity 'the Act') on the ground that the same were being plied in violation of the permit conditions with wrong registration number and wrong chassis number. After seizure, the above vehicles were given in the custody of the Police Station, Pali and investigation is going on.

3. The petitioner claiming himself to be the registered owner of the above vehicles applied for interim custody by filing separate applications under Section 457 of the Cr.PC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba. Learned CJM rejected his applications observing that from perusal of the report of R.T.O. it appears that the vehicles were being plied in violation of the permit conditions, permanent permit granted to the petitioner has already been cancelled on 1st October, 2007, the petitioner has been directed to return the original permit and has been further directed to stop plying the above vehicles and that the dealer of the vehicles Tata Motor Pvt. Ltd. after enquiry has reported that the chassis number of the vehicles is without original punch and regarding engine number it has been shown that it has either been removed or lost.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicles were registered with the R.T.O. after physical verification. The permit has been cancelled and the vehicles are lying unattended in Police Station, Pali. He further argued that the whole exercise has been commenced at the instance of rival bus operators and the Courts below without considering this aspect have mechanically rejected his applications under Section 457 of the Cr.PC for interim custody of the vehicles.

5. Placing reliance on the order passed in the matter of Gopal Vishvas v. State of C.G. reported in it has been contended that the seized vehicles should be given in the interim custody of the registered owner as they are exposed to heat, cold and rains as a result of which they are likely to junk causing irreparable damage and loss to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State/respondent supported the orders passed by both the Courts below.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the orders of the Courts below.

8. From perusal of the impugned orders it is clear that permanent permit of the registered vehicles has been cancelled on 1st October, 2007. There is a charge against the petitioner that chassis number and engine number of the vehicles do not bear the original punch and engine number of missing. The owner of the vehicles was plying the seized vehicles by putting wrong registration number of other vehicle and enquiry is pending.

9. Apart from the above reasons, it is also observed that the vehicles have been seized under Section 207 of the Act. Section 207 of the Act is being reproduced as under:

Section 207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc.--(1) Any Police Officer or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contrave