STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "No light," said Milton in Paradise Lost, "but rather darkness visible." But Courts, determined to secure harmony and spurn antinomy between law and justice, search "light" in lexicon of law in a surge of an urge to say "no darkness, but only light visible." In such determination, resting on linchpin of epicerastic exercise, Courts bear in mind that "law" has to enchisel "flaw" and ensure "flow" in doctrinal direction. After all, no one can have a droit in recourse to opposite course. This inbred intendment aptly takes us to the issue to be unknotted.

(2.) The issue is manifest conflict in two decisions of equal vigour.

(3.) One of us (Hon'ble Shukla, J.), sitting single, found, while hearing this criminal revision presented by the State under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') against the order dated 24-7-1996, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore (Motor Vehicle Magistrate) in O.A. No. 11471/96, thereby directing release in purported exercise of power under S. 457 of the Code, of Passenger Bus No. MP 09-S-1820 plying between Gwalior and Indore and seized and detained by the Taxation Authority (the Transport Inspector) on 18-7-1996 in terms of S. 16(3) of the M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short 'Adhiniyam') on the fulcrum of non-possession of valid permit, as required under S. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and non-payment of tax leviable under the Act, on Supratnama of 9 lakhs, supported by surety of equal value, on specified conditions, discordant sound in two Divisional Bench decisions One : Brahmanand v. State of M.P. (1994) 1 MPWN 126 decided by Hon'ble Kokje and Shukla, JJ. holding in M.P. No. 1388/92 on 2-12-1993 that "A Criminal Court of Competent jurisdiction would, therefore, have jurisdiction to grant temporary custody of the vehicle under the Code of Criminal Procedure" even when seized and detained under S. 16(3) of the Adhiniyam and two :