Key provisions of MV Act and criminal law summarised
A motor vehicle may be lawfully seized by law enforcement authorities like the police or under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”), where certain offence(s) are alleged involving the vehicle seized.
MV Act
A vehicle may be seized under Section 207 of the MV Act, but only in limited circumstances in the case of a private vehicle, such as the driver not holding a (valid) driving licence, or is underage, or the vehicle is not registered at the relevant time.
However, Section 207(2) of MV Act allows the owner or person in charge of the seized vehicle to apply to the transport authority or officer authorised for release of the vehicle on production of the prescribed documents for such purpose, who may impose conditions for such release as per applicable rules and regulations of the concerned transport authority.
Failure to do apply for release of the vehicle or delay may result in the vehicle suffering from neglect and possible imposition of charges by the concerned authority for safe-keeping the vehicle.
Criminal law
Police officers are provided general powers of seizure of property including a vehicle (suspected or alleged) to be involved in a crime and required for purpose of investigation into the offence(s).
Any seized vehicle can be released by the concerned by the police officer where its retention in police custody is no longer necessary for the purpose of such investigation, but may also require the person with possessory rights over the vehicle as owner etc. and to whom custody is transferred to execute a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle before the concerned Court as and when required.
Where the matter is before a criminal Court, an application under Section 451 or 457 (as applicable) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) may also be made before the Court for custody of the seized vehicle, including in circumstances where the police refuses to do so.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has also recently held where the person has produced all the necessary identifying documents (eg. original RC, Voter ID, insurance policy) to prove his identification and possessory rights over seized vehicle as the registered owner, and in spite of that, without assigning any proper reason, the concerned authority/Court has rejected the application filed seeking interim custody of the vehicle, such a decision cannot be legally sustained. The Hon’ble High Court has further held that except under exceptional circumstances the vehicles seized during the course of investigation must be released to the interim custody of the registered owners, subject to conditions, otherwise these vehicles may deteriorate on continued exposure to natural elements.
Furthermore, where any such property is seized, the CrPC also requires the details thereof to be forthwith reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate, failing which the custody of the property may also become unlawful.
Legal information by Legalrisk – Law, risk and AI
