The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to consider the application for release of the seized vehicle on Supurdnama under Section 457, Cr.P.C. unless specifically excluded by the provisions of Section 207 of the Act.

S.S. Saraf, J.

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for both the sides submit that the matter can be heard and disposed of finally.

3. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 12-10-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No. 119/99 confirming the order dated 23-8-99 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon in Remand Proceedings of Crime No. 51/99 of Police Station, Mohla District Rajnandgaon rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing egistration No. MP-23 D-4860 "Swaraj Mazda" on Supurdnama.

4. The said truck was seized by the concerned police for offence under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the "Act") and Sections 6, 7 and 11 of M.P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959 (for short the "Adhiniyam"). The said truck was registered in the name of Bhawani Traders, Station Road, Dhamtari. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate for getting the truck released on Supurdnama. The learned Magistrate by order dated 23-8-1999 rejected the application on the ground that since the vehicle has been seized in connection of offence under Section 66/192 of the Act, he has no jurisdiction to consider the application. A Revision Petition No. 119/99 having been filed against the said order dated 23-8-1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon by order dated 12-10-1999. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12-10-1999, the present petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no specific bar in the Act prohibiting the release of the vehicle by the Magistrate when the vehicle is seized in violation of the provisions of Section 66 of the Act and therefore the orders passed by the Courts below are not suslainable in law. He has further contended that besides the offence under Section 66 of the Act, the offences under Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the Adhiniyam are also alleged to have been committed and therefore the petitioner cannot approach the authorities for getting the vehicle released on Supurdnama as mentioned in Section 207 of the Act.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I find considerable force in the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no provision in the Act that if the vehicle is seized for offence under Section 66 of the Act, the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case will have no jurisdiction to consider the application filed under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. It is apparently clear from the record that no offence under the Madhya Pradesh Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam and Rules alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and therefore the provisions of the M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam do not attract in the present case which debar the consideration of such application by the Trial Court.

7 Besides, it is also apparently manifest that the said vehicle has been seized in connection of various offences under the said Adhiniyam for which the authorities referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act have no jurisdiction to consider the application for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has placed reliance on the decision of Patna High Court in Sharangdhar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar and others (Patna High Court) whereby it has been held that if the vehicle is seized for offence under Section 66 of the Act, such vehicle cannot be released on Supurdnama under Section 457, Cr.P.C. in view of the specific provisions of Section 207 of the Act. As discussed earlier, there is no bar under Section 207 of the Act that no Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case pertaining to offence under Section 66 of the Act would have