THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24871 of 2005
Between:
Dated 29th June, 2010
The Hyderabad Goods Transport Association.
…Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.
…Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Ravi Counsel for respondent: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the Circular Memorandum No.456/C1/CCRB/CYB/2005 dated 07.07.2005 issued by the respondent as illegal and arbitrary, apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).
The petitioner is an association of owners of goods vehicles. They have felt aggrieved by the abovementioned circular issued by the respondent, which reads as under.
“There have been thousands of accidents taking place in Cyberabad police commissioneirate limits every year. The rate of accidents have been on the spiraling increase from year to year. On an average, about 850 people die and 3500 people get injured every year in road accidents in Cyberabad. Road safety has become a major cause of concern in the community.
Cyberabad Police has a strategic goal to reduce accidents by 50% in a period of three years. Towards achieving this goal several measures are being initiated at District Administration & Police Department levels.
One measure Police need to adopt here after in all cases of fatal accidents is to deposit crime vehicles in the court after MVI inspection. The accused should their vehicles released through court only. If any goods are there in vehicle the same may be handed to the owner before deposing the vehicle in the court.
This shall be done uniformly in all police stations in all cases irrespective of number of deaths in each accident. This practice will serve two purpose.
1. acting as a deterrent for reckless drivers especially goods vehicles and
2. serving as evidence for successful prosecution of the accused in the court of Law.
All SHOs, CIS, AcsP of all branches are instructed to strictly adhere to the instructions and implement the same uniformly. Public education shall be taken up to bring about awareness in the community in this regard through pamphlets, banners, stickers etc.”
Sri K. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the abovementioned circular is contrary to Section 136 of the Act. He also placed reliance on circular memo dated 11.11.2002 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, and submitted that the impugned circular is contrary to the said circular and therefore, is liable to be set aside.
From a perusal of the impugned circular, it is revealed that the same was issued having regard to the fact that thousands of accidents are taking place at Cyberabad Police Commissionerate limits every year and that on an average 850 people have been dying and 3,500 people are getting injured every year. As a part of strategy to reduce accidents, stringent measures are being taken and in furtherance thereof, the impugned circular was issued. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned circular is contrary to Section 136 of the Act, I am of the opinion that the said provision is intended only to facilitate the person authorised by the Government to inspect and examine the vehicle involved in an accident. In contrast, Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers Police Officers to seize any property found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Under Section 451 Cr.P.C., the magistrate is empowered to release the property to its owner pending inquiry or trial. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers any Police Officer to seize any property with respect to an offence.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed before the Court a judgment of this Court in K. Dhananjaya Rao vs. State of A.P.[1], wherein it has been held that the prosecution shall always produce the property involved in the accident before the jurisdictional Magistrate and that if they failed to produce the same, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The said observations were made in connection with a case pertaining to Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In my opinion, irrespective of the impugned circular, it is the duty of the Police to produce the offending vehicle in order to preserve the evidence and see that the vehicle is not unduly tampered with. It is only under the orders to be passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate that the vehicles can be released to the owners. As rightly pointed out in the abovementioned judgment, if this procedure is not followed, the accused may be likely to get the benefit of doubt.
The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed apprehension that in the guise of the impugned circular, the Police have been indiscriminately seizing the vehicles. I do not find any merit in this submission because the circular was issued only in respect of the accidents resulting in one or more deaths and where cases are registered for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. With regard to the circular dated 11.11.2002, the Director General and Inspector General of Police has instructed therein that the accident vehicle should be released within twenty-four hours of their inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector concerned. The impugned circular was issued after lapse of three years of the earlier circular issued by the Director General. In my opinion, the respondent, being the Unit Head pertaining to Cyberabad Police Commissionerate limits, is entitled to issue necessary instructions and orders in order to regulate the traffic and other related affairs within his area of his jurisdiction. The impugned circular, having been issued in public interest, and being inconformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C. does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.31963 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th June, 2010 GHN
[1] 2004(1) ALT (Crl.) 45 (A.P.)