SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) CORE question that cropped up for consideration in the instant petition is, as to whether the provisions contained in section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.P.C.) are attracted in respect of vehicles seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the M.V. Act).
(2.) THIS question emerges in the circumstances set out below - (i) The petitioner is the registered owner of Jeep No. RJ 29 C 0058. On November 11, 1997 the Motor Vehicles Inspector Dausa seized the said jeep under Section 207 of the M.V. Act on the allegation that it was found plying by driver Nasirkhan without having Registration Certificate, OTT (one time tax), Insurance Certificate, Driving Licence and Permit Certificate. Eleven passengers were found travelling and it was being used on hire reward. Seizure memo of the Jeep was prepared by the Inspector and it was got signed by the Driver Nasir Khan. (ii) An application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle, before the learned Special Mobile Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. The said application was dismissed vide order dated January 7, 1998. (iii) Against this order that the present action for filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been resorted to by the petitioner. A.K. Sahdadpuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it was incumbent upon the learned court below to release the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The persons who were found travelling in the jeep were not passengers but they were personal members. All the required documents are with the petitioner and the jeep ought to have been released. Reliance was placed on Mahendra Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 552; Sardar Singh v. State, 1996 R.C.C. 265 and Jamuna Devi v. State, 1983 RCC 401.
(3.) ON the other hand Mr. S.R. Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate canvassed that provisions contained in Section 457 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the seizure of vehicles under the provisions of the M.V. Act. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel supported the impugned order and placed reliance on Shrangdhar Sharma v. The State of Bihar, 1992 Cr.L.J. 2063; State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Nissar, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 675/95, decided on 17.7.97 (RHC) and Suchrata v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 743/97 decided on 9.12.97.;