Shamim Ahmad vs State of U.P.& Ors.

Dr. Maithli Sharan, J.—The revisionist has filed this revision petition against the order dated 951997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in regard to seizure of the vehicle, Commander Jeep No. U.P. 32A/6304.

Briefly stated the fact of the case is that the revisionist is an owner of the said vehicle, Commander Jeep No. 32A/6304 which was seized by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Barabanki on 751997 under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The revisionist applied for the possession of the said vehicle purported to be under Section 457 Cr. P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 951997. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the application filed by the revisionist ordered the S.O. of the concerned police Station of send a report by 1251997. However, on 951997 itself on which date the said application was moved, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application observing that he had no jurisdiction to give the possession of the said vehicle to the revisionist. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had sent for a report of the police by 1251997 he could not have passed an order on 951997 itself. Be that as it may, the question that crops up to be pondered over in this revision petition is as to whether the provisions of Section 457 Cr. P.C. would be applied in this case. Section 457 Cr. P.C. is reproduced as below:

"457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such properly is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If ihe person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."

Clause (1) of the said provision goes to indicate that the seizure of the property should be by the police officer. In the instant case, the seizure, admittedly, is not by the police officer but by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Barabanki. Thus, apparently the instant case would not come under the mischief of Section 457 Cr. P.C. Under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle could have well been seized by the police officer or by any other person authorised in this behalf. But when it was not seized by the police officer then in that case the provision of Section 457 Cr. P.C. would not be attracted. The learned counsel for the revisionist has admitted that the application for the release of the said vehicle was also moved beofre the Additional Transport Commissioner (Prevention), U.P. Lucknow.opposite party No. 3 as is clear by Annexurc 5, but that application is still lying there and it has not been disposed of. That was, undoubtedly, proper remedy available to the revisionist. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had certainly no jurisdiction in this case.

Thus, in view of the above discussions, this revision petition is misconceived and not maintainable, and it is accordingly dismissed. If any other legal remedy is available to the revisionist, he may take recourse to that.