MOHD JAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) THE orders passed by the A. C. J. M. Court No. 1, Rampur dated 18-11-2006 refusing to release of Swaraj Tractor No. 735 No. UP 22-A 7213 (hereinafter referred as the disputed vehicle), which was confirmed in revision on 6-1-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge, E. C. Act, Rampur, are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the arguments on behalf of the respective Counsel for the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jugual Kishore and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , A. C. J. (Vol. XXI) 1994 (2) 1030, ruled that in the event, a vehicle is seized and detained by the police officer or any other person authorized by the State Government having reasons to believe that one or the other offence has been committed, the question to be considered first is for its temporary release subject to owners furnishing adequate security within a reasonable period of time. If the vehicle is not released temporarily, the police officer or persons authorized to decide the question as to whether owner has committed any offence or any proceedings pending are liable to be compounded, the aggrieved person can very well approach this Court for its release under Article 226 of the Constitution. The aforesaid decision related to a vehicle that was seized for violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The criminal Courts had declined to release the vehicle under Section 451 or 457 Cr. P. C. for the reason that no criminal proceedings were pending and it was the A. R. T. O. alone who could exercise the right of release. The extract of paragraph 9 of the said decision is enumerated herein below:- "if the vehicle is not released temporarily the police officer or person authorised has to decide the question as to whether the owner has committed any offence or the offence is to be compounded. This exercise has also to be completed within reasonable period of time. When the police officer or authorized person does not release the vehicle so seized on being satisfied that an offence has been committed or refuses to compound the offence, he is duty bound to complete the investigation/inquiry within a reasonable time what is a reasonable time in a given case would depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and to file a complaint before the Magistrate competent to try the case and the Magistrate on the complaint being so laid before him would have the jurisdiction to release the vehicle pending trial as provided under Section 451 Cr. P. C. and later on to pass an order as to the final disposal of the vehicle as provided under Section 451 Cr. P. C. at the conclusion of the trial. If the complaint is not laid before the Magistrate within a reasonable time it is always open to the owner of the vehicle to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. "