Chand Ram vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The petitioner Chand Ram was challaned for an offence under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that he was using the Jugar (a sort of tractor assembled by the petitioner himself) on 2.7.1995 on the public road without registration No. and without the relevant documents, like the registration certificate. He was directed to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rewari on 16.7.95. It is also stated that the Jugar has been seized.

The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rewari (Annexure P2) for return of the said vehicle on supardari. According to the petitioner, the said application was dismissed and the revision filed by him before the Addl. Sessions Judge Rewari was also dismissed on 11.8.95. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 11.8.1995 rejecting his request for the release of the vehicle and for directing 2nd respondent to release the vehicle on supardari. He has also prayed for the quashing of the challan Annexure P1.

The respondents filed a reply stating that on 2.7.95, the Jugar in question was seized from the public road and was impounded under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that no registration certificate or any other document was shown by the petitioner. The other allegations made in the petition have been denied/controverted except that the petitioner moved for the release of the vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge but failed.

I have heard the counsel for the both the sides. Although the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the challan (Annexure P1), at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the release of the vehicle on supardari and undertook that the petitioner will compound the offence as provided for under Section 208 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit that he is always ready to compound the offence. The leaned counsel for the petitioner also relies on an unreported decision of this Court in Cr. Revision 325/1995 (Mukesh v. State of Haryana) decided on 15.9.95 wherein under similar circumstances a Jugar was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner in that case on his undertaking that he will not ply it on the road. In these circumstances, I am also of the view that the Jugar in question could be dismantled and the oil engine released to the petitioner on supardari on the following conditions :

(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the court and compound the offence, if permissible, in accordance with the provisions of Section 208 of the Motor Vehicles Act and shall be subject to such order as may be passed by the concerned Magistrate on the basis of such compounding.

(ii) That the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Magistrate concerned undertaking not to use the oil Engine for plying on any public road.

(iii) That the jugar in question shall be dismantled and the oil engine alone shall be returned to the petitioner on supardari for the purpose of bailing out water from the well and that he shall not use the same for constructing a jugar and for running on the road. The rest of the dismantled material shall be with the police or the concerned court as the case may be till the concerned court passes a final order on the concerned challan.

While passing the final order, the court shall pass appropriate orders according to law regarding the disposal of the oil engine and the remaining dismantled parts of the jugar.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.