PADMESH GOUTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed challenging the correctness of the order dated 29-11-2012 passed in W.P. No. 15895/2012 contending inter alia that the issue that the vehicle of the appellant was seized under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam') and no application under section 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was maintainable for grant of Supurdginama of said vehicle before the Court of Judicial Magistrate as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, but instead of considering such pleas in appropriate manner, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner with a liberty to the appellant to approach the aforesaid Court of Judicial Magistrate. It is contended that if the vehicle was seized under the Adhiniyam by an unauthorized officer, said seizure was illegal as was held in many cases by this Court. However, without appreciating these aspects, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition of the appellant, therefore, this intra Court appeal is required to be filed. Brief facts are that the appellant, a transporter, is the owner of the bus MP17 P/0291. The aforesaid stage carriage vehicle is registered in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. On 9-9-2012, the Officer-in-Charge, Traffic, District Shahdol, seized the vehicle of the appellant and registered certain offences under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also under section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam. The State Government has issued the notification authorizing officers to seize a vehicle under the Adhiniyam, if any violation of the aforesaid Adhiniyam is found and as is clearly indicated in the Notification dated 9-1-1992; only the officers not below the rank of Assistant Transport Sub Inspector of the Transport Department are authorized to make seizure of the vehicle, if the same is found to have contravened the provisions of the Adhiniyam and any offence is registered under the aforesaid Adhiniyam. It is contended that in the case of M/s Hardeo Motor Transport Company vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, W.P. No. 5057/2007, decided on 3-8-2007, this has categorically been held by this Court that if a seizure of a vehicle is made by an officer not competent to do so, for any offence committed under the Adhiniyam, such a seizure is bad in law. The fact was brought to the notice of learned Single Judge that the offence is registered against the appellant under the Adhiniyam as is indicated in the seizure memo by an officer not duly notified in this respect and a seizure of vehicle is made, as such the seizure of the vehicle in respect of the said offence was bad in law. It is further contended that in view of the law laid-down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, 1998 2 MPLJ 249, there was no right available to the appellant to approach the Court of Judicial Magistrate for seeking the custody of the vehicle in terms of the provisions of sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, such an observation and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge are bad in law.

(2.) Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents was directed to produce before us the copy of the seizure memo so as to indicate whether any offence under the Adhiniyam was registered against the appellant while seizure of the vehicle was made or not. Such documents have been produced.

(3.) After careful examination of the seizure memo produced by learned Govt. Advocate, it is clear that offence under section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam was registered against the appellant and for the said purpose, seizure was cumulatively made by the respondent No. 3 on 9-9-2012. Of course the seizure is made with respect to the offence committed under sections 66 /192, 56 /192(1)(c), 146 /196, 115(7) /190(2), 130(1)(2)(3) /177, 9 /177, 36 /177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 77 /177 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. For the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, the respondent No. 3 was competent to seize the vehicle as notification in that respect was not required but for the seizure of the vehicle under the provisions of section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam, the respondent No. 3 was not notified and as such he could not have seized the vehicle of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. This particular aspect has already been considered by this Court in the case of M/s Hardeo Motor Transport Company and as such the seizure of the vehicle of the appellant to this extent by respondent No. 3 was not to be upheld. Learned Single Judge has failed to see these aspects in appropriate manner and he has disposed of the writ petition of the appellant to make appropriate application before the Judicial Magistrate. As has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta , no such application under section 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of grant of custody of vehicle seized under the Adhiniyam. To that extent the order passed by learned Single Judge is not to be approved.