RAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 18.11.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Misc. Case No. 946(M)/97 whereby she has refused to release the vehicle seized by the Inforcement Sub -Inspector for the offences alleged to have been committed under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE facts leading to the instant application are that a Truck bearing number BER 3172 was seized by the Inforcemant Sub -Inspector on 18.8.1997 for the offences under Sections 192, 192A, 194 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was kept in the custody of Sachiwalaya police station. The petitioners case is that he is the real owner of the aforesaid truck and has got a valid registration certificate in his name. It is stated that the insurance certificate was produced before the Officer concerned for the release of the vehicle but the vehicle was not released. Subsequently, the Inforcement Sub -Inspector filed prosecution report against the driver and owner of the vehicle in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act and issued summons to the accused persons. The said criminal case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for conducting the trial and its disposal. The petitioner and the driver appeared before the Court and filed their bail application which was allowed on 16.10.1998. On 20.10.1998 the petitioner filed an application under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court where the case is pending for trial,for release of the vehicle claiming himself to be the real owner and in support of that all documents relating to the vehicle were produced in the Court. The Court below, after hearing the petitioner rejected the petition by the impugned order holding that the Court is not empowered to pass release order of the vehicle seized by the Transport authority. Hence this revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and failure in the exercise of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that when a prosecution report is submitted and a criminal case is instituted then it is the Criminal Court which can release the vehicle and there is no bar under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below misconstrued the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.