PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It has come up for admission. It is directed against the order dated 11.11.2004 passed by the learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2004 by which he has refused to interfere with the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jehanabad in Tr. No. 1878 of 2004 arising out of M.V. Case No. 29 of 2004 by which the prayer of the petitioner for the release of the seized truck was not considered favourly.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. BR 17G, 4949. On 23.5.2004 it was intercepted at Check Post No. 2 at Jehanabad by the District Transport Officer (hereinafter called the DTO) and since according to him necessary papers were not with the truck, he seized it. He submitted a prosecution report under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and Section 28(7) of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad. As per his prosecution report the petitioner had not paid necessary taxes of this truck from 15.11.2000 the date on which the State of Jharkhand was carved out of the erstwhile State of Bihar.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for the release of his truck. However, the DTO in his report vide letter No. 135 dated 11.6.2004 had submitted that necessary tax liability of this truck was due with effect from 16.11.2000 till the date of its seizure which requires to be ascertained. Finally the tax liability penalty was assessed at Rs. 1,71,319/- as will appear from this letter (Annexure-3). Against this order the petitioner has preferred a revision (Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2004) before the learned Sessions Judge which was heard and disposed of by the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Jehanabad who rejected the same on the ground that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature. The petitioner has contended that he had deposited the tax for this vehicle and holds valid goods carriage permit bearing Permit No. 325 of 2000 (Annexure-5) which was valid from 23.7.2000 to 22.7.2005 and as such in terms of Section 67 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (in short the Act) there was no tax liability on the petitioner.