SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
SHEFEEK SHAJAHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 3104/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.NIKHIL SANKAR
For the Respondents: SMT. PUSHPALATHA. M.K

The distinction between vehicles and machinery affects the documentation required for interim custody following a seizure under related statutes.

Headnote:The judgment addresses the appeal against the order dismissing the petitioner's request for interim custody of a seized excavator, emphasizing the distinction between machines and vehicles under relevant laws. The court found the initial ruling erroneous as it required vehicle documentation rather than machine-related documents. It reiterated that machinery like the excavator falls outside the definition of a vehicle requiring registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on precedents. The court ultimately quashed the previous decision, directing a reconsideration of the custody request based on proper evaluation of submitted documents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025/18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 3104 OF 2025 CRIME NO.123/2025 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP NO.1099 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III (FOREST OFFENCES), NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

SHEFEEK SHAJAHAN AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RASHEEDA SHEFEEK MANZIL, VALIYAKADA, ELANCHIYAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695563 BY ADV S.NIKHIL SANKAR RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-

695551), PIN - 682031 SMT. PUSHPALATHA. M.K, SR.PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2025 The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 5 order, dismissing his application for interim custody of the Excavator JCB 81 Hitachi Machine [Invoice No:2207200309] [Engine No:4H2188/222058]. The machine was seized in connection with Crime No.123 of 2025 registered at the Vithura Police Station alleging commission of the offence under Section

306(1)(c)(MA) of the Police Standing Order.

2. The crime is registered in relation to an incident, in which the operator of the machine died, when the machine accidentally fell from a height while engaged in the process of removing pieces of rubber wood from a property.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is rendered on the wrong premise that the petitioner was seeking release of a vehicle. Therefore, the learned Magistrate found fault with the petitioner for not producing the registration certificate and other documents to prove ownership of the vehicle, in spite of producing Annexure 2 tax invoice, Annexure 3 sale letter and Annexure 4 policy of insurance. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court inSales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [ 2004 KHC 56 ] andRajesh v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (5) KHC 414 ] to point out the distinction between vehicles and machines like hydraulic excavator.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that in Annexure 3 sale letter the expression used is ‘vehicle’, which is indicative of the fact that seizure is not of a machine, but a vehicle.

5. Annexure 4 policy of insurance is with respect to a JCB81 Hydraulic Excavator and the policy is termed as a Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy. This Court in Rajesh (supra) has held that a Bobcat Excavator is not a vehicle and is therefore not liable to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. That decision was rendered by following the well considered judgment of the Division Bench in Sales Tax Inspector (supra), paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of which reads as under;

“7. The 1994 Act was enacted to “provide for levy of tax on the entry of goods into the local areas for consumption, use or sale therein.” S.2 gives the definitions. Cl.(j) defines the motor vehicle to mean a vehicle “as defined under Cl.28 of S.2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” S.3 provides for the levy of tax. It lays down that “tax shall be levied and collected” on “the entry of any goods into any local area for consumption, use or sale therein. The tax shall be at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the Government by notification on the purchase value of the goods, but not exceeding the rates specified for the goods in the first schedule in the KGST Act.” The remaining provision is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. After the initial enactment, various other items were also entered. Entry 21 was also added. It provides for the levy of tax on “other machinery.” Since S.2(j) adapts the definition of the Motor Vehicle as given in the 1988 Act, the provision of S.2(28) may also be noticed. It reads thus:

“Motor Vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top