HIKMAT ULLAH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.