Reporting by : Amit Kashyap.
The single bench of Justice Ashwani kumar singh of Patna HC in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. The state of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22949 Of 2016, held that merely because the registration of a vehicle expired, as would appear in the present case from the certificate of registration, does not mean that the petitioner loose the status of its ownership.
The allegation in the complaint was that a tanker loaded with 19800 litres spirit bearing registration no.WB 37B 8086 while standing by the side of the road at a lonely place near Kothia Bazar falling within the jurisdiction of Bangra outpost was raided and searched. Three goods carrier vehicles containing plastic drum of 200 liter were also found parked near the tanker. However, on seeing the raiding team, the drivers managed to escape with those three vehicles. On physical verification, seal of the tanker was found broken. On enquiry, the driver disclosed that he was getting the spirit unloaded on the instruction of one Jameel Bhai.
It was stated by the complainant that the tanker was seized in accordance with law and a copy of the seizure list was handed over to the driver Shankar Das.
It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the said tanker.
He filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur for release of the vehicle, which was rejected. Thereafter, a revision application was filed before the learned Session Judge, Samastipur and the learned Session Judge, allowed the revision application and remanded the matter back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for passing order in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.
Thereafter, the petitioner pleaded before the court of Magistrate to release the tanker in the light of the observations made by the revisional court, but the learned Magistrate without paying any heed to the direction given by the revisional court rejected the application for release of the vehicle, vide order dated 16.7.2015 on the ground that the validity of registration of the vehicle had expired on 26.12.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred both in law as well as on facts.
It was submitted that since the said vehicle was seized and remained in the custody of the police, the registration after 26.12.2014 could not be effected because at the time of registration, it is mandatory to produce the vehicle before the registering authority.
It was also submitted that till date no confiscation case has been initiated in respect of the tanker in question.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is a case of recovery of huge quantity of illicit liquor from the tanker in question. As such, considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the validity of registration of the tanker had expired, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the tanker.
After discussing the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, Hon’ble Court Held:
So far as the reason assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate for rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking release of the tanker is concerned, the same is unsustainable. It is an admitted position that the certificate of registration of the tanker is in the name of the petitioner. Merely because the registration was till 26.12.14, as would appear from the certificate of registration annexed to this application, the petitioner does not loose the status of its ownership.
The Hon’ble court further observed that the tanker admittedly is lying in the police station since 15.10.14. Hence, on or after 26.12.14, when the period expired, the same could not have been produced before the authorities of the Transport Department. Once the vehicle is released and it passes fitness test, the registration may be renewed further.
Thus, Hon’ble Court held that the denial of release of the tanker on the ground of expiry of registration period is, thus, totally misconceived.
Therefore, petition allowed and tanker was directed to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner.
***********
Judgements In Criminal Law 