Hema Ram v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan And Others

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.:— The matter comes up on an application seeking modification/correction in the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3480/2019.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. The aforementioned order dated 07.11.2019 passed by this Court in the present misc. petition is substituted by the following order:

“1. Petitioner has preferred the present misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief:—

“it is, therefore, prayed that this misc. petition may very kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 (Ann. 3) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Degana in the Cr. Misc. Case No. 62/2019 may very kindly be set aside and the vehicle no. RJ 37 PA 1762 may very kindly be released and the application of the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. may very kindly be allowed and the respondents may very kindly be ordered to deliver the vehicle in question to the petitioner on Superdginama forthwith;”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MTR issued by the respondent is of Rs. 2,40,650/- against the tax liability arising in relation to the vehicle in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with Section 8-A and Rule 8 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951, the taxation officer was to give notice in Form M.T.R. giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, which has not been given, and directly a notice under Form MTR has been issued. It is also contended that if appropriate opportunity is given, the petitioner shall explain the liability in question but until then the vehicle in question may be ordered to be released.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the tax liability has been determined in accordance with law, and at best, the petitioner can be given an opportunity of hearing, and therefore, if he is able to give the necessary explanation, then the liability can be re-determined.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in question in confiscation, and therefore, it would be appropriate to release the vehicle in question after the owner (petitioner) submits a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,40,650/- with the court below. Thereafter, a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the petitioner and after taking his complete stand on record, appropriate order may be passed. The bank guarantee shall either satisfy the demand issued by the department, in case such a finding is arrived at afresh or the same may be returned back to the petitioner.

6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Stay petition also stands disposed of.”

4. The aforementioned order dated 07.11.2019 shall be read accordingly.