Telangana High Court
Bendra Thirupathi Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 16 December, 2021
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.630 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner - accused to set aside the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla in Crl.M.P. No.364 of 2021 in Cr.No.106 of 2021 of Ellenthakunta Police Station.
2. Heard Mr. G. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner - accused filed Crl.M.P. No.364 of 2021 under Section - 457 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.106 of 2021 seeking interim custody of the TATA Safari vehicle bearing registration No.AP 16CE 0555 claiming that he is the owner of the said vehicle having purchased the same from one Mr. G. Venkateshwar Rao for a consideration of Rs.6.00 lakhs under an unregistered document dated 17.02.2021. The same was not transferred in his name. The said vehicle was seized by the police in the aforesaid crime registered for the offences under Sections - 419 and 420 of IPC and Sections - 50 and 100 (2) read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If the said vehicle is in the custody of the police, it will be damaged.
4. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.12.2021 dismissed the said petition by observing that the petitioner is not the registered 2 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.630 of 2021 owner and that the investigation is pending. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the petitioner; that the Magistrate did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle having purchased the same from its original owner. If the vehicle is not released, it will be damaged.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that as per the provisions of the M.V. Act, he has to get the vehicle transferred within time specified in the Act and that period has already elapsed. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. There is no error in the impugned order and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present revision.
7. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apt to refer to Section - 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is as under:
"50. Transfer of ownership.-- (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,--
(a) the transferor shall,--
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)--
(A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,--3
KL,J Crl.R.C. No.630 of 2021 (I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where--
(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or
(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5):
Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount. (4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub-section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177. (5) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub-section (2).4
KL,J Crl.R.C. No.630 of 2021 (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority."
8. In view of the above provision, it is clear that if a vehicle is within the same State, the same should be registered within fourteen days of the transfer, whereas, if a vehicle registered outside the State, the same should be transferred within forty-five days. In view of the same, now coming to the case on hand, according to the petitioner, he had purchased the seized vehicle from one Mr. G. Venkateshwar Rao, resident of Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh State on 17.02.2021. The subject vehicle was registered in Andhra Pradesh vide registration No.AP 16CE 0555. So, as per the aforesaid provision, the petitioner should have transferred the seized vehicle in his name within forty five (45) days from the date of his purchase (17.02.2021). The said 45 days period has already expired. The Rules permit the petitioner to get the vehicle transferred in his name by paying fine. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not transferring the vehicle in his name so far is that on account of present COVID-19 pandemic situation, he could not get the vehicle transferred in his name and the same appears to be plausible.
9. More over, no purpose would be served in keeping the subject vehicle either with the police or in Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1 has held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate 1 . (2002) 10 SCC 283 5 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.630 of 2021 orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. But, the Court below did not consider the principle laid down by the Apex Court. In view of the same and also considering the nature of offences alleged against the petitioner etc., the order of the Magistrate dismissing the application for release of the crime vehicle as an interim custody is liable to be quashed.
10. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed, and order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla in Crl.M.P. No.364 of 2021 in Cr.No.106 of 2021 of Ellenthakunta Police Station is hereby quashed. Consequently, the learned Magistrate is directed to release the crime vehicle (TATA Safari) bearing registration No.AP 16CE 0555 to the petitioner as an interim custody on imposition of certain conditions to its satisfaction and on proper identification and verification of ownership and under acknowledgment. Similarly, the petitioner herein is directed to get the crime vehicle transferred in his name from the registered owner in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder by paying fine etc. within one week from the date of release of the vehicle and deposit the original certificate of registration before the learned Magistrate Court, failing which, learned Magistrate and the police are directed to take steps in accordance with law. 6
KL,J Crl.R.C. No.630 of 2021 As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 16th December, 2021 Mgr