The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure of a vehicle under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 should be based on the due tax and legal process, and the court may set aside the seizure if no tax was due at the time of seizure.

Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.-This misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 12.08.2005 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 1, Sikar in case No. 43/2005 by which the application under Section 451, CrPC for interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-23-P-3475 which was seized by the Transport Department under Section 17 (2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 (in short the Act of 1951) was rejected.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said vehicle was seized by checking party of the Transport Department on 14.07.2005 and without adopting any legal course demanded Rs. 17,526/-. It is also contended that when the vehicle was seized, no tax was due on the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the said vehicle was seized under Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1951. It is also contended that if any contravention has been made by the driver of the vehicle then only course was to file a challan or a complaint and in these matters, the criminal Court was competent to release the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of law. It is also contended that the petitioner to save himself from harassment deposited the amount of Rs. 17,526/-with the Transport Department on 15.07.2005.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the order of Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sikar and contended that on account of the contraventions of the conditions of the registration and non-payment of due tax, the involved vehicle was seized under Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1951.

.4. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the impugned order. At the time of seizure of the said vehicle, no tax was shown to have been due on the petitioner. From Annexure-3, it appears that demand was raised after the next day of the seizure of the vehicle which appears to have been deposited by the petitioner on the same day. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 12.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class No. 1, Sikar is set aside. It is ordered that Tata Bus bearing registration No. RJ -23-P-3475 shall be released on Supardginama to the petitioner provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned District Transport Officer with the following conditions:

1. That he will keep the said vehicle present in the Court as and when required;

2. That he will not transfer or give the said vehicle to any other person nor he will part with the possession of the said vehicle;

3. That he will not change the shape or body of the said vehicle.