LAWS(PAT)-2005-1-36

PUNIT KUMAR Vs. STATE

Decided On January 07, 2005
PUNIT KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused counter affidavit also.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition on 16.12.2004 with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 4, District Transport Officer, Begusarai to release the bus of the petitioner bearing registration no. BR -39A -2398 immediately in view of the fact that the Sessions Court at Begusarai has already ordered for release of the said vehicle vide order dated 2.11.2004 passed in Cr. Revision No. 187/04 and in view of bonds furnished by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate as recorded in the order dated 8.11.2004 (Annexure -2).

(3.) ON consideration of all the facts and circumstances this Court finds that Misc. Case No. 73/04 relates to the same occurrence leading to seizure of the vehicle on 6.9.2004 for which a non -FIR case bearing no. 104/04 was reported to the Magistrate and in which release order has been passed by learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and perusing all the papers relating to the vehicle produced by the petitioner. No other or independent offence is pending vide Misc. Case No. 73/04 which appears to have been initiated after seizure made on 6.9.2004. In such circumstances pendency of a Miscellaneous proceeding before the respondent no. 4 for production of documents relating to the vehicle cannot be a valid ground for refusing release of the vehicle in compliance of order of release passed by a competent court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a photo copy of a Chalan dated 8.9.2004 showing that Rs. 9,850/ - has been deposited by the petitioner towards road tax of the vehicle on 8.9.2004 for the period 1.9.2004 to 30th September, 2004. Learned counsel for the State has submitted in this regard that the said Chalan cannot be a proof of the fact that entire tax has been paid. To this learned counsel for the petitioner has replied by referring to a receipt dated 9.9.2004 granted by the District Transport Officer, Katihar showing that tax for the period 1.9.2004 to 30.9.2004 amounting to Rs. 9,850/ - has been paid in respect of the petitioners bus. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such receipt is granted only when tax is paid as per requirement of law.