HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Manoj Kumar Alias Manoj Kumar Yadav .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Prakash Dixit, Vikas Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.5.2025, passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 18370 of 2025 (State Vs. Pashupati Shah), under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction, hence the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 2745 of 2002 He has further relied on the law laid down by this Court in Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (2) JIC 881 to contend that where a vehicle is seized by Transport Authority under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, only transport authority or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf has power to release the vehicle.

4. Learned trial court has passed the order dated 3.5.2025 after consideration of law held in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat; 2003 (46) ACC 233, wherein it has been held that said vehicle has to be released in favour of the registered owner and the registered owner was found by the learned trial court on the basis of document, Pashupati Shah (opposite party no.2).

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.3-Deepak Kumar, who has filed release application as power of attorney holder of registered owner/opposite party no.2, Pashupati Shah. Thereafter, the learned trial court had released the said vehicle in favour of the registered owner. In paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit, the opposite party no.3 has specifically deposed that the aforesaid vehicle in question is belongs to opposite party no.2 and admittedly the opposite party no.2 Pashupati Shah is the owner of the vehicle in question till yet, having legal authorization as registration of vehicle, insurance of vehicle, fitness of vehicle etc. are still in his name. It is further made clear that it is true that the Pashupathi Shah/opposite party no.2 sold the aforesaid vehicle in question in favour of Deepak Kumar/opposite party no. 3 on 16.9.2021 in consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/ and due to pendency of loan amount as well as Challan and taxes of the vehicle in question, the registration certificate was not transferred in favour of Deepak Kumar/opposite party no.3, but the vehicle in question was handed over to the opposite party no.3 by the opposite party no.2 and thereafter a proposal was made by one Aslam Qureshi to the opposite party no.3 for purchase the aforesaid vehicle in question and it was done in the tune of Rs. 15,25,000/, but Aslam Qureshi failed to pay the aforesaid consideration amount to the Deepak Kumar/opposite party no.3 and then a proposal for purchase of aforesaid vehicle in question was made by the present revisionist to the opposite party no.3 and both were agreed in the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- and out of which only Rs. 1,00,000/ was handed over by the present revisionist to the Deepak Kumar/opposite party no.3 and issued a cheque No. 482241, amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- dated 25.12.2024 and on the assurance and earnest amount of Rs. 1,00,000/, the vehicle in question was handed over to the revisionist by the opposite party no.3, but when the cheque amount was not credited in the favour of opposite party no.3, the aforesaid alleged notary agreement have no force and as above the alleged notary sale