SHARANGDHAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as _the Cr. P.C._) has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10-10-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya by which he has affirmed the order dated 18-12-1991 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Magadh Division, Gaya refusing to release the vehicle of the petitioner. Prayer is also for releasing the vehicle.

(2.) The petitioner is the registered owner of Bus No. BPP 9653. On 13-9-1991 the Roadways Magistrate along with the Sub-Inspector of police (opposite parties No. 2 and 3) seized the said buts on the allegation that the vehicle was found plying from Mahendiya to Bokaro with 25 passenger without having any permit for the route as contemplated u/ S. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as _the Act_). Thereafter, a prosecution was instituted against the petitioner for committing an offence u/ S. 192/177 of the Act, which is still pending. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the learned special judicial Magistrate but the same was rejected by the order dated 18-12-1991. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, which was also rejected by the impugned order. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have noticed in their orders that the petitioner had committed similar offences thrice within a span of period of one and half year including the present prosecution. In the previous two criminal cases the accused by filing affidavit had given assurance that the vehicle would not be plied without valid permit. In spite of the said undertaking, after release of the vehicle, the same was found to be plying without permit. Keeping this aspect in view the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to release the vehicle any further. The learned Sessions Judge also did not feel pursuaded to pass any order releasing the vehicle.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that under the facts and the circumstances of the case, the courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them in its proper perspective, which has led to miscarriage of justice inasmuch as if for petty offences like the present one, the motor vehicles worth lacs of rupees is allowed to rot in police custody since the loss likely to be caused will be irreparable. It was further submitted that in view of S. 457 of the Cr. P.C. it was incumbent upon the courts below to pass an appropriate order for release of the vehicle on such terms and conditions as may be found fit and proper. It was also submitted that since in this case, the learned Magistrate had completely failed to exercise his jurisdiction judicially, therefore, the bar contained u/ S. 397(3) cannot have any play.