RAVINDRA NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) THE orders dated 18 -10 -2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Jaunpur and 20 -1 -2007 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the vehicle was registered and was being driven by Ashok Kumar Yadav who had valid licence. A copy of the licence is annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition. Since the permit was surrendered on 31 -12 -2002, the petitioner was not required on the date and time when the vehicle was seized to have a valid permit and, therefore, seizure and its consequent detention is illegal. An application under Section 457, Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle was moved before the A.C.J.M. 1st, Jaunpur on 28 -9 -2006. A report was called for from the Transport Authority which was submitted on 5 -10 -2006. The report has also been brought on record as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The report clearly stated that the permit and other documents relating to its commercial use was already deposited with the Taxing Officer Transport Department, Jaunpur on 31 -2 -2002. The learned Magistrate rejected the application as not maintainable vide order dated 18 -10 -2006, which is annexed as Annexure - 7 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said order shows that there was some report of A.R.T.O., Jaunpur dated 17 -10 -2006 to the effect that the vehicle was registered as Jeep Maxi Cab Public Vehicle and Rs. 1,87,538/ - is arrears towards tax. No challani report was received in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate till date, the order was passed and the vehicle was seized under Section 207(1), M.V. Act and under Section 22 of Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1997. A revision filed against the said order was also dismissed.