Sri. A.M. Munirathnam Mudaliar vs The State of Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—Though the matter is posted today for the admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter to taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner has challenged the order rejecting his application filed u/s 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the BUS bearing registration No. KA-07-6904 involved in the motor vehicle accident.

The facts reveals that the said bus was involved in an accident and was seized by the police during investigation of the crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. After the seizer and the examination of the vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, an application came to be filed by the petitioner u/s 457 Cr.P.C. through his power attorney holder, requesting to release the Bus on the ground that he is the owner of the said bus and that in case if it is kept in custody by non use, it will loose its value.

Objections were filed by the state apprehending change in the colour, vehicle number etc., and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.04.2010 has rejected the application on the ground that the owner has to be present before the Court and that vehicle number has not been mentioned in the general power of attorney executed by the owner. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been preferred.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the impugned order is legal and valid?

It is not in dispute that the vehicle was seized by the police during investigation in the crime registered for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, so also it is not in dispute that the general power of attorney holder who had produced the copy of the general power of attorney is the attorney of the owner of the vehicle. It reveals that the power of attorney holder has been authorised to take delivery of the vehicles after its release and to execute all necessary acknowledgment in this regard in favour of the Court or in favour of the police authorities, as the case may be. So the perusal of the power of attorney produced reveals that when the power of attorney holder submits application for release of the vehicle he is authorised to take custody of the same by executing necessary bonds etc. Further merely because the number of bus has not been mentioned in the power of attorney, it does not mean that the power of attorney holder has no authority to file application for release of the vehicle, when admittedly the bus in question is owned by the executor of the power of attorney and when it is general power of attorney, the holder is entitled to apply for release of the vehicle and can execute documents on behalf of the owner of the bus. In such circumstances, the presence of the owner before the Court is not necessary for any purpose. So also the non-mention of number of the bus is not relevant. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal and perverse and has to be set aside. In result the petition is allowed.

The order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Crime No. 30/2010 on the file of the JMFC, KGF is set aside. The bus bearing registration No. KA-07-6904 is ordered to be returned to the custody of power of attorney holder, that is applicant on the following conditions:

i) That the applicant shall execute an indemnity bond for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

ii) That he shall not change the colour and type of the vehicle etc.

iii) He shall produce vehicle before the Court whenever directed.