Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.08 seconds)Section 451 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 457 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 192A in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Hardev Motor Transport vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 19 October, 2006
The Full Bench of this Court has laid down that
Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be
operative in the matter of search and seizure under the
provision of Section 16(3) of Adhiniyam, 1991. It has also
been laid down that when a vehicle has been seized and
detained, it is for the authority to release on satisfaction
that "no tax is due" in terms of section 16(4) of the
Adhiniyam, 1991. The object to tax is not liable to be
frustrated. Aggrieved person can file an appeal under
Section 20 of Adhiniyam, 1991 on deposit of amount in
question. Section 451 of CrPC is not attracted nor Section
457 of CrPC is attracted in such cases. Thus even before
introduction of Section 16(5) of Adhiniyam, 1991 by way
of amendment, the Full Bench has opined that provisions
of Section 451 and 457 of CrPC are not applicable. Thus,
the position remained the same. Now there is statutory
introduction of provision, otherwise also provisions of
Sections 16(3) and 16(4) which existed prior to insertion
of Section 16(5), have been interpreted to mean that the
Criminal Court will not have the power to release the
(24)
vehicle under sections 451 and 457 of CrPC. The Apex
Court in Hardev Motor Transport Vs. State of M.P. &
others (supra) has considered the aforesaid aspect and
has observed in Para-35 that if power of Court has been
taken away, that cannot be said to be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.P.A.I.T. Permit Owners Assn. & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2003
19. The power of the State of Madhya
Pradesh to seize a vehicle in terms of
Section 16(6) of the 1991 Act came up for
consideration before this Court in M.P. AIT
Permit Owners Assn. v. State of M.P. -
Section 20 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Estate Manager, M.P. Housing Board vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta on 16 April, 2009
In State of M.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta -
1998(2) MPLJ 249, on question being referred to larger
Bench whether Criminal Court can exercise the power
under sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C in view of the
provision of Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of Adhiniyam, 1991,
the Full Bench of this Court considering rules 16 and 17 of
M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Rules, has laid down thus:-