G.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE miscellaneous petition is preferred against the order dated July 19, 1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for handing over the vehicle to him, which has been retained by the Transport Authorities.
(2.) THE petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. RST -1635 (a jeep). This vehicle was checked by the Assistant Sub -Inspector, and the registration -certificate, permit, insurance -certificate and the token of taxes were not found kept in the vehicle. So the vehicle was seized; and on 19th July, 1989, a complaint with regard to these deficiencies, was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri. The very day when the complaint was filed, the petitioner moved an application for handing over the vehicle to him on 'Supardginama', as the alleged offences were of technical nature. The learned Magistrate did not agree with the petitioner and observed in his order that according to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act'), the power of releasing the vehicle rests with the Government, So, he dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, who dismissed the same on the ground that no revision lies against such an order. Hence, the petitioner has come to this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for getting quashed the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner read over to me the complaint filed by the Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, wherein, it has been mentioned that when the vehicle was checked, it was not found having its registration -certificate, permit, insurance -certificate and the tax -token, and that it was carrying more than permissible passengers. When a complaint is filed in a court, the vehicle seized by the Police, becomes a part of that complaint; and it is deemed that the vehicle is also in the court. Such offences are of technical nature. In this case, if the petitioner was not having the above documents, he was liable to be punished according to the Act. If he was carrying more than permissible passengers, or the driver driving the vehicle was under intoxication, he was to be dealt with, according to law. But, all the offences are not of that nature, where, the vehicle is to be retained either in the court or with the Police. No doubt, under subsection (2) of Section 207 of the Act, it has been mentioned that the State Authorities would pass necessary order for releasing the vehicle, Under Section 207(1), a vehicle is checked, and when the documents mentioned in this section are not found available in that vehicle, the authorities have power to retain the vehicle. But, once the documents are shown to the authorities, and they are found to be valid ones, then, there is no justification in retaining the vehicle either in the Police Department or in the Transport Department. In this case, when the complaint was filed in the court, if the documents were shown to the court at that time, then, I do not see any reason why the courts are debarred from passing an order releasing the vehicle either on 'Supardginama' or enantly because, the offences alleged against the petitioner, are not of that nature, which can compel the court to retain the vehicle. The person would face the trial, and if he is found guilty, he would be punished. But, for this offence for which the complaint was filed, there is no justification to retain the vehicle, and I find that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner. The reason given by the learned Magistrate in his order was under Section 207 of the Act, the State Government has power to pass orders for the release of the vehicles. I feel pity on the learned Magistrate. The Act is enacted to regulate plying of vehicles and to see that offences are not committed while plying the vehicles. But, this Act is not meant for harassing the public. No doubt, it is duty of the owner of a vehicle to keep the documents ready in the vehicle, and produce them at the time of checking. But, if for some reason, the documents are not found with the driver or in the vehicle, then, the provision is that time is to be granted to the owner of the vehicle to show those documents to the authorities concerned; and if they are found to be valid ones, then, there is no question of filing of any complaint against that person. But, for other offences regarding carrying passengers above the permissible capacity or driving vehicle under intoxication, certainly, a complaint can be filed and the person would face the trial. But, merely not keeping the documents in the vehicle at the time of checking and if they are shown later on, I do not sen any justification in harassing the public. If this is the interpretation, then the Police Department and the Transport Department have all powers to harass the public to any extent in the garb of this section. The learned Magistrate too did not understand the objects and reasons of the Act. When the documents were with the owner, and he was showing them to the Magistrate, I fail to understand, how the learned Magistrate passed the order that the State Government was empowered to release the vehicle. So, the order of the learned Magistrate, is an absurd order and without reasoning. Such orders which are passed without applying mind and without understanding the provisions of the Act, should not and cannot be permitted to remain in force. No doubt, the learned Sessions Judge has correctly dismissed the revisions petition, because, no revision lies against interlocutory orders, but, certainly, this Court under its inherent powers, is empowered to entertain such petitions and set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, which have been passed without understanding the provisions of law.
(3.) THE petition is, therefore, accepted The order of the Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, dated 19th July 1989, set aside. The petitioner is directed to show all the documents to the learned Magistrate, after and the Magistrate seeing those documents, shall pass necessary orders releasing the vehicle, which be banded over to the petitioner.;