Skip to content


Nandiram Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Criminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Appln. Nos. 288 and 289 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Guj80; 1967CriLJ483; (1966)GLR866
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 516-A and 517; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 22, 24, 28 and 31
AppellantNandiram
RespondentState of Gujarat and ors.
Appellant Advocate A.H. Mehta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.M. Choksi, Govt. Pleader and D.D. Vyas, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the learned judge has lost sight of the fact that ordinarily when any property such as the motor vehicle is attached or seized by the police, one has to consider the effect of the provisions of the motor vehicles act for dinging out the true claimant before passing orders relating to such property during the pendency of the proceedings under section 516-a of the criminal procedure code. it appears from the order passed by the learned magistrate on 20-2-19675 for issuing process against accused no. 1 under section 406 of the indian penal code that he has found that there is prima facie case about 'the complainant having invested money for the purchase of the motor car and that the same has been registered with the regional transport authorities in his name. 'now, section 22 of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1 to 5) * * * * *

(6) That takes me to the other application which is directed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 20-2-1965, below Ex. 6 in the case. The learned Magistrate also the learned Sessions Judge appear to have been carried away by the impression that as the motor came to be attached from the custody of the accused No. 1, it has to be returned to him during the pendency of the trial subject of course to such conditions as may be laid down by the Court. However, the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that ordinarily when any property such as the motor vehicle is attached or seized by the police, one has to consider the effect of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for dinging out the true claimant before passing orders relating to such property during the pendency of the proceedings under section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 20-2-19675 for issuing process against accused No. 1 under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code that he has found that there is prima facie case about 'the complainant having invested money for the purchase of the motor car and that the same has been registered with the Regional Transport Authorities in his name. 'Now, section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes the registration obligatory before any such motor vehicle could be driven either by the owner thereof or by some other person on his behalf. As provided therein, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carriers a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Section 24 then provides as to how registration has to be made. An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be given in certain form set out in the Schedule and it shall contain certain information required therein. The proviso thereto then says that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and each applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act. It is thereafter that the registration certificate is being issued. Such a registration certificate has been issued in favour of the complainant alone and nowhere does the name of accused No. 1 appear in respect thereof. Section 28 of the Act then says that such a certification of registration issued in respect of any such vehicle shall be effective throughout India. Then section 31 of the Act provides for a transfer of ownership of any vehicle. Where the ownership of any motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor, shall, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee. Then clause (b) says that the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides, and shall forward the certificate of registration to the 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. It follows from the provisions referred to here above that the registration certificate is an essential necessity before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued, obviously would be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure is contemplated under section 31 of the Act and till any such transfer of ownership is entered in the certificate of registration, one has to take it that the person in whose favour such a certificate of registration is issued by the motor transport authorities is the owner and that way entitled to remain in possession thereof. Non compliance of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act sometimes makes the owner responsible. In those circumstances, it would be ordinarily prudent and in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to allow such a motor vehicle to remain in possession of such a person in whose name the certificate of registration stands. Any other person can be taken to be a person at the most as making use of it on his behalf or if there is no consent on his part, as against his interest. In case of this character, possession by itself would not be a true criterion for the return of the same to a person from whom it has been seized or attached by the police, in relation to a case against him. In my view, the person on whose name the motor vehicle stands with the registering authority, would be entitled to remain in custody thereof and not any other person, unless he is able to establish his superior title or claim over it.

(Prs. 7 to 10) XX XX XX XX XX

(11) Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //