TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH versus SARDAR ALI, BUS OWNER

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 26-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

TRANSPORt COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
SARDAR ALI, BUS OWNER 
August 26, 1983 
(0. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ .]' 
Motor Vehicles )Jct, 1939-S. 129-A-Seizure and detention of a motor 
vehicle by·a police officer or any other person authorised by State Governmef!l-
Whether ultra·vires.as offending Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution 1 
Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 authorises the seizure 
and detention of a motor vehicle by a police officer or any other person autho..; 
rised by the State oOvernment in that behalf if such officer or person has 
reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used without a certificate 
of registration as required under s. 22 or without a pern1it as required under 
sub~s. (1) of s, 42 or in Contravention of any condition of such permiL The 
app-eals in this group of matters were directed against a judgment of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court striking down s. 129~A as an unreasonable restriction on 
the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution for the 
reason that there was no discerriible purpose behind the seizure authorised by 
the.section, that the seizure was based on the subjective satisfaction of the 
police officer or the person authorised, tJ~at there was neither any obligation 
On him to produce the vehicle in the court nor was any power conferred 
on the court either to confiscate the vehicle or to pa$s any orders rega.rding 
its temporary custody, that there was no provisiol) in the Act indicating 
as to what should be ·done after seizing and detaining the vehicle and that 
there was also no provision prescribing any maximum.period for the detention 
or t~e vehicle or providing _for an appeal against seizure. 
· 
Upholding the validity of s. 129~A and allowing the appeals, 
HELD: There is no lacuna·in regard to the proper custody·and disposal 
ofthemotorvehicle_seized under s.129~A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 
proVisions of the Act have to be read in conjunction with·the provisions of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure. [739 A-BJ 
G 
(i) Section 129-A contemplates three situations where the police officer 
or the person authorised niay seize and detain the vehicle and. these.are precisely 
the three situations made punishable under s. 123(1). The power given.to seize 
and detain the vehicle under s-. 129-A has to be exercised by the police offiCer 
or the person authorised when he has reason to believe that an offence punish-
H 
able under s. 123(1) has been" or is being committed. After detecting the 
commission of; an . offence punishable under s. 123(1) the next step for him 
would be to consider whether the offence should be compounded as provide4 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COUl\T REPOR'l'S 
[1983) ~ s.c.R.. 
under s. 127:.B and thereafter to lay a complaint before the Court competent 
to take cognizance of the offence. Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure provides that all offences under any law other than the Penal Code 
shall also be investigated, inquired into, tried and 'otherwise dealt with in 
accordance with the provisions of_ the Code subject to any enactn1ent for the 
time being in force regulating the manrter or place _of investigating inquiring 
into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Chapter -XIII ~f the Code 
deals with "Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials". So. 
subject to s. 132 of the Act, the Court before which the complaint may be laid 
has to be detCrniined in accordance with Chapter XUI of the Code and after 
the complaint is laid before the appropriate court it has to be tried in accor-
dance with the provisions of the Code subject to s. 130 of the Act. This is how 
th~ offender has to be dealt with. [733 D; H; 734 A·B; G-H; 735 A-BJ 
(ii) A pre.condition to the seizure of a vehicle unde.r s. 129-A is.that 
the police officer or the person authorised must have reason to believe that one 
or the other of the offences specified in s.123 has been Or is be~ng committed. 
The seizure is expected to serve a manifold purpose such as to prevent repeti-
tion of the offence, to use the thing seized as material evidence in the prose-
cution and so on. Section 129-A itself provides that the detention of the 
vehicle by the authorised officer or person is to be teHlporary, and obviriusly, 
until appropriate orders regarding its disposal are made. The vehicle may be 
released if the owner satisfies the authorised officer_ of person

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.