Bombay High Court
Devchand @ Devhchan S/O Shriram ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Police ... on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
8-wp121.21.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. WRIT PETN. NO. 121 OF 2021
Devchand alias Devchan Shriram Naik
-Vs.-
State of Maharashtra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.G.Karmarkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.S.D.Sirpurkar, APP for the respondent
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 12.07.2021
Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged concurrent orders passed by the two Courts
below, whereby an application moved on behalf of the
petitioner under section 457 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for release of his tractor has been
rejected.
3. An F.I.R. dated 23/04/2020 had been registered
against the petitioner and a co-accused person under
section 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and section 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 on the allegation that minor
mineral (sand) was being illegally transported in the
said tractor.
KHUNTE
8-wp121.21.odt
4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Deori by an order dated 17/06/2020 rejected the
application filed on behalf of the petitioner for release
of the vehicle. It was specifically recorded in paragraph-
5 of the order that not a single document was produced
by the petitioner to show ownership of the said tractor.
All that was produced was a tax invoice and an
insurance policy purportedly pertaining to the aforesaid
tractor. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had
filed a revision application before the Sessions Court at
Gondia. By judgment and order dated 10/11/2020, the
Sessions Court dismissed the revision application and
confirmed the order of the Magistrate.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition
was filed in which notice was issued. The respondent
had filed its reply. Relying upon the admitted position
that the tractor is not registered under the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act of 1988), it is
submitted that no interference is warranted in the
impugned orders.
6. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the Courts below had erred in
passing the impugned orders for the reason that under
second proviso to section 41 (1) of the Act of 1988, the
onus was on the dealer to get the tractor registered, as
it was a new motor vehicle and that therefore, non-
registration of the vehicle could not be a ground for
rejecting the application for release of the vehicle filed
on behalf of the petitioner. It was further submitted
KHUNTE
8-wp121.21.odt
that there was no other person claiming ownership of
the said tractor and that therefore, the impugned orders
deserve to be set aside.
7. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned APP for the respondent,
submitted that section 39 of the Act of 1988 specifically
enjoins that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and
no owner of the motor vehicle shall be permitted to
drive a vehicle in a public place or any other place
unless the vehicle is registered. It was submitted that in
the absence of registration of the vehicle and showing
ownership of the said vehicle (tractor) with the
petitioner, no exception could be made to the impugned
orders passed by the Courts below.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the
rival parties and considered the material on record.
Section 39 of the Act of 1988 clearly lays down that
there is a necessity for registration of every motor
vehicle and that in the absence of registration of the
motor vehicle, no person can drive the same in any
public place or any other place. The tractor in the
instant case is admittedly not registered. Therefore,
when the tractor was seized at the time and place of the
incident, it was being driven in violation of section 39 of
the Act of 1988.
9. Even though the second proviso to section 41(1)
of the Act of 1988 requires the dealer to get a new
motor vehicle registered, in the absence of registration
of the motor vehicle, the petitioner in the present case
KHUNTE
8-wp121.21.odt
could not have driven it in a public place or any other
place. Further it becomes clear that in the absence of
registration, there is no document in the eyes of law to
show that the petitioner is indeed the owner of the said
tractor. In these circumstances, the Courts below were
justified in rejecting the application filed on behalf of
the petitioner for release of the tractor in question.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that liberty needs to be granted for
the petitioner to take appropriate steps to get the
tractor in question registered in his name. Needless to
say, such an opportunity is always available to the
petitioner. If he takes any steps in that regard, the
concerned Authorities shall act in accordance with law.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
