Pagilla Nageshwara Rao vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1077 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.94 OF 2022

ORDER:

This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'the CrPC') to set aside the

order dated 22.02.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2021 in

Cr.No.142 of 2020 of Maddirala Police Station, by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy, Nalgonda District.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Rao Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

Perused the record.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the subject vehicle

i.e. Swaraj Tractor bearing No.TS-04-EW-8796 attached with

Trailer bearing No.AP 2080758 ( for short, 'the subject vehicle' )

was seized in the subject crime. The offences alleged against the

accused are under Sections 304-A IPC and Sections 181 and

196/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short, 'the Act' ).

4. The petitioner herein, claiming to be the owner of the subject

vehicle, filed a petition under Section 451 read with Section 457

IPC vide Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2021 in Cr.No.142 of 2020 seeking

interim custody of the said vehicle. The Court below has dismissed

the said application vide impugned order dated 22.02.2021 on the

ground that the subject vehicle is not having third party insurance

as on the date of accident. The Court below has also referred the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Usha Devi Vs. Pawan

Kumar1 and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat2.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the owner of

the subject vehicle. In proof of the same, he has filed a copy of the

Registration Certificate. There is also no dispute that the subject

vehicle was seized in the present crime for the aforesaid offences.

The ground on which the Court below dismissed the said

application is that the subject vehicle is not having valid third

party insurance as on the date of accident. It has relied upon the

principle laid down by the Usha Devi (supra). In the said case, the

Apex court examined award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, High Court under the provisions of the M.V.Act, claiming

compensation due to the death of the deceased.

5. In Usha Devi (supra), the Apex Court reiterated

recommendations given by the High Court in judgment and one of

the recommendations is that where there is no insurance cover for

Civl Appeal No(s). 9936-9937/2016, dated 26.03.2018

(2002) 10 SCC 283

a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit

an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately

passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle

involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not

made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be

taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in

deposit until the claim case is disposed of.

6. It is only a recommendation. Moreover, it is under the

provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Whereas, in the present case,

the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the subject vehicle, filed

an application under Section 451 read with 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking

interim custody of the vehicle. Therefore, the Court below cannot

dismiss the said application on the ground that the subject vehicle

is not having valid third party insurance as on the date of accident.

The Court below should have noticed that if there is no valid third

party insurance to the subject vehicle as on the date of accident,

the claimant, claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act

from the owner of the vehicle. If there is valid insurance, they can

claim the compensation from the insurance company and owner of

the property. While dealing with application under Section 451

read with 457 of Cr.P.C. filed seeking interim custody of the

vehicle, learned Magistrate cannot step into the shoes of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, and cannot decide the said application

complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Motor Vehicles Act.

Moreover, in Usha Devi (supra), the Apex Court has reiterated the

recommendations made by it in one of the judgments. Learned

Magistrate without considering the same, erroneously dismissed

the application filed by the petitioner.

7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat3, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that keeping the seized vehicles with the

Police or Courts would not serve any purpose and the same have to

be returned to the owners on verification of ownership documents

and on imposition of any condition. Though the Court below

referred the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai

Ambalal (supra), erroneously dismissed the said application relying

upon Usha Devi (supra). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to

be set aside.

8. In the result, the Revision is disposed of. The order dated

22.02.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2021 in Cr.No.142 of 2020

of Maddirala Police Station by the Judicial Magistrate of First

. (2002) 10 SCC 283

Class, Thungathurthy, is set aside. The matter is remanded back

to the learned Magistrate, with a direction to consider the said

application and give interim custody of the subject vehicle to the

petitioner herein on verification of the ownership documents and

on imposition of certain conditions to its satisfaction.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:08.03.2022 vvr