- (1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastav, J. Heard Sri R. N. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners are registered owner of Truck No. 77a-7086. THE registration certificate of the truck has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. On 14-11-2006, the aforesaid truck was seized under Section 207 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it is in custody of police out post industrial area Orai within the circle of P. S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. On 16-11- 2006, a release application was preferred in respect of the said truck in case No. 447 of 2006, State v. Bhola @ Santosh. THE Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate called for a report. THE Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) Orai, District Jalaun respondent No. 2 submitted a report on 20-11- 2006. Copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected release application vide order dated 21-11-2006 for want of jurisdiction on the basis of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore and Ors. v. State of U. P and Anr. , 1992 JIC 25 (All) : 1994 (22) ACJ 1030. This order was challenged in criminal revision No. 409 of 2006 and the revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 5-12-2006. Both the orders are challenged in the instant writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has emphatically disputed findings of the Courts below whereby it is stated that since the truck has been detained for violation of Section 207 (1) of the Act and the truck was challaned by the transport authority. It is transport authority alone, which is entitled for release of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 227 of Motor Vehicles Rules. It is also contended that the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore (supra) has wrongly been interpreted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed decision of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2006 (2) JIC 60 (All) : 2006 (54) ACC 948. It is submitted that driver of the truck was taken into custody by the police out post industrial area Orai. On the basis of challan report, case No. 497 of 2006 is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai, therefore, the Magistrate could not have declined to exercise jurisdiction for release of the truck. After hearing Counsel for the petitioners at length, it appears that the objection submitted by the respondent-No. 2 ARTO before the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate was to the effect that primarily, it is jurisdiction of the competent transport authority to release the truck under the provision of Rule 227 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. Since no release application has been moved at the instance of the owner of the truck before the competent authority i. e. respondent No. 2 therefore, the C. J. M. declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 451, Crpc and the application was rejected. Perusal of the documents does not establish factual nature of the alleged violation by the petitioners. It is only stated in the report of A. R. T. O. that the vehicle was being driven in violation of Section 207 (1) of the Act, it does not transpire from the record what was the alleged violation. No doubt, the allegation is that vehicle in question was used in contravention of the condition of permit, but it is significant to note that purpose of seizure is only to prevent repetition of commission of offence. The seizure or detention of the vehicle under Section 207 (1) of the Act is of a temporary nature, the police officer or authorized person is entitled to release the vehicle in favour of the owner subject to furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the authority. Two Courts have not even tried to examine the nature and extent of offence for which the vehicle was detained or to examine the gravity of the alleged violation, on the contrary the application has been rejected mechanically. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore (supra) emphasized that exercise for release of the vehicle seized is to be examined expeditiously. It is bounden duty of the concerned authority/court to complete exercise of inquiry within a reasonable period of time. In the event it is concluded that offence has been committed, efforts should be made to compound within a reasonable period of time or alternatively file the complaint, if circumstances so exist, before the concerned Magistrate so that procedure for release of the vehicle can be commenced under Section 451/457, Cr. P. C. till conclusion of the trial. In the instant case, the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as revisional Court do not establish that any criminal complaint whatsoever has been registered by the transport authority against the petitioners, on the contrary only objection is that since it is a case of violation of Section 207 (1) of the Act, it is transport authority alone, that is entitled to release the vehicle. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Nanded Parbhani Z. L. B. M. V. Operator Sangh, 2000 (1) JIC 593 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 725, has held in paragraph 8 that seizure conferred upon the appropriate authority is in fact a sovereign power of the State and has been delegated to the police officer in discharge of their duties of law enforcement and in the enforcement of an orderly society. It was, therefore, concluded that giving a plain meaning to the word used under Section 207 (1) of the Act is not to inconvenience or cause hardship and, therefore, power is required to be exercised with great care and caution. The revisional Court distinguished the case of Radhey Shyam Yadav on the basis that fact of the said case relates to non-payment of tax and, therefore, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
(3.) HOWEVER, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore (supra) has held that in the event concerned authority fails to lodge any complaint before the Magistrate within a reasonable period of time, it is always open for the owner of the vehicle to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, it does not appear from the report/objection of the ARTO. that he has filed any complaint before the concerned Magistrate for commission of an offence or has issued any show cause notice to the petitioners disclosing the nature of violation, for which vehicle has been challaned and seized. It is apparent that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer after seizing the vehicle, has handed it over to the police, that is lying in custody of the police without any progress whatsoever. In the circumstances, the petitioners are well within their right to approach this Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of the vehicle. The order of the C. J. M. declining to release the vehicle by the Magistrate is only for want of jurisdiction, and the same stands confirmed in revision, therefore, I am not in agreement with the stand taken by the transport authority as well as Courts below that the vehicle cannot be released in favour of the petitioners.;