Orissa High Court
Kedarnath Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3730 of 2022
Kedarnath Sahoo .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Behera, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Date of hearing : 12.10.2023
Date of judgment : 12.10.2023
V. Narasingh, J
1.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Assailing the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Patnagarh dated 15.10.2022 in Criminal
Revision No.01 2022 confirming the order dated 03.03.2022
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh in CMC No.121 of
2021 rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under
Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in his favour, this
Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle bearing
registration number OD-03-H-2904, he is liable to take the zima
// 2 //
of the vehicle as the vehicle is kept in front of the police station
exposed to vagaries of nature.
4. He further submits that since the courts below have
committed manifest error in not directing the Petitioner to
furnish security as per Rule 6 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles
(Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rule, 2018, the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside.
5. In this context, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court dated 13.12.2021 in the case of
Nabaratna @ Nabaratan Agrawal Vrs. State of Odisha, 2021
(Supp) OLR 83.
6. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned
orders passed by the learned courts below and submits that there
being no patent illegality in the impugned orders, the matter
does not merit consideration of this Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Rule 6 of 2018 Rules is quoted hereunder for ready
reference :
"6. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle
involved in accident:- (1) No court shall release a
motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in
death or bodily injury or damage to property,
when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of
insurance against third party risks taken in the
name of registered owner or when the registered
owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance
policy despite demand by investigating officer,
unless and until the registered owner furnishes
sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court
to pay compensation that may be awarded in a
claim case arising out of such accident."
// 3 //
7-A. It can be seen that there is no embargo on the
Revisional Court while exercising power under Section 457
Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle in question, if the owner is able to
provide "sufficient security" as envisaged under Rule 6 of
2018 Rules.
8. Though the learned Revisional Court has referred to
Rule 6 of 2018 Rules yet failed to appreciate the special
circumstances in the case at hand for release of the vehicle in
favour of the owner on furnishing sufficient security to the
satisfaction of the court. And, more so when there is no dispute
relating to his ownership of the vehicle in question.
9. On a conspectus of the materials on record and taking
into account the provisions of Rule 6 of 2018 OMV (Accidents
Claims Tribunal) Rules and the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Nabaratna @ Nabaratan Agrawal (supra), this
Court sets aside the impugned orders and directs release of the
vehicle as per Rule 6 of 2018 Rules within a period of one
week, on the Petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of
the learned Court in seisin.
10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Designation: A.R.-cum-Sr. Secy.
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 17-Oct-2023 11:18:39
