Anandi Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for the accused applicant.

Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, AGA, for the State. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the order dated 23.7.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 601 of 2019, State v. Rashid, under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby the application filed on behalf of the applicant for release of the vehicle has been rejected.

The case of the applicant is that she is the registered owner of the vehicle Tractor Trolley No. UK 04L 8943. On 8.5.2019, an FIR was registered with the allegation that the said vehicle was found loaded with illegal minor mineral. Consequently, the said vehicle was seized and challaned by the police of PS Kashipur under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and since 8.5.2019, that vehicle is lying parked in the open area of the said police station.

The learned Magistrate has rejected the release application, moved on behalf of the applicant, on the ground that the challan/chargesheet was not received in the said Court and, therefore, as per the provisions contained under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the power to release any such vehicle lies with the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government.

Learned Counsel for the applicant attracted the attention of this Court towards sub-section (2) to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:

"Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. "

Learned Counsel for the applicant would contend that the words "may apply to transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government" in the above provision make it evident that, in addition to the competent court, the owner of the vehicle or person in charge of the motor vehicle is at liberty to apply for the release of vehicle to transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf and it is absolutely clear from the phrase "may" that this provision does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to pass orders on the release application prior to the filing of the challan/chargesheet in the matter.

Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered on 19.11.2013 in Writ Petition No. 2512/2011 (M/S), Bar Association Dehradun v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

"Combined reading of Section 207 and 192 - 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act would make it clear, if vehicle is seized by a police officer or any officer authorized by the State Government under Section 207 for contravention of the provisions of Section 39 or the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit, owner of the vehicle may also apply for release of the vehicle before the Transport Authority or before the officer authorized by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 207 prior to filing of the chargesheet before the learned Magistrate, however, if chargesheet is filed before the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 192 and 192-A, learned Magistrate only shall have jurisdiction to release the vehicle as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure."

Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned AGA for the State, does not dispute with the above provision and would agree that the Magistrate concerned do have power to order for release of vehicle even prior to submission of the challan/chargesheet.

This Court is also in agreement with the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant. Sub-section (2) to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles does not give exclusive power to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government and the Magistrate concerned is well within its jurisdiction to deal with any such release application even prior to filing of the chargesheet in the matter.

In view of what has been set forth above, this C482 application is allowed. The impugned order dated is quashed and the Court below is directed to take a decision afresh on the release application moved on behalf of the applicant in the light of the legal proposition (supra) and the observations made hereinabove.