Absent a pending or proposed complaint, only Transport Authorities may release vehicles seized under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioner, registered owner of tourist vehicle No. JK21G-0042, challenged the seizure of the vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Department on 05.06.2026 for allegedly being operated without a valid All India Tourist Permit (AITP) and without payment of the prescribed permit fee.

The petitioner claimed that the vehicle had a valid permit and that the requisite fee had subsequently been paid. He applied before the District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Kathua, for release of the vehicle. The Magistrate directed its release on interim custody upon furnishing a supurdnama and after proper identification, by order dated 02.07.2026.

The Transport Authority challenged that order in revision. The Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, set aside the Magistrate’s order on 25.07.2026, holding that the Transport Authority or an authorised officer, rather than the Magistrate, had jurisdiction to consider release under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023, to order release of a vehicle seized by the Transport Authority for alleged contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder, where no complaint, challan, or charge-sheet has been filed or proposed to be filed before the criminal court?

Whether Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 confers jurisdiction upon the Transport Authority or an authorised officer to consider release of the seized vehicle in such circumstances?

Whether the Revisional Court’s order setting aside the Magistrate’s release order warranted interference under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023?

The Court applied Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the owner or person in charge of a vehicle seized under Section 207(1) may apply to the Transport Authority or an authorised officer for release, subject to verification of documents and suitable conditions.

Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023, which corresponds substantially to Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers a criminal court or Magistrate to pass orders regarding custody and disposal of property produced before it during an investigation, inquiry, or trial.

The Court relied on State of J&K v. Bilal Shamus, 2006 Cri LJ 746, recognising the Magistrate’s jurisdiction where seizure is brought before the court in connection with a criminal case, and on Ashok Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Deoraj Singh v. State of U.P., which distinguish the statutory power to release a seized vehicle from the power to grant or validate a transport permit.

The Court further held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot be exercised to interfere with a legally correct revisional order.

The Court held that Section 497 of the BNSS could operate only where the property had been produced before a criminal court or Magistrate in the course of an investigation, inquiry, or trial.

In the present case, the vehicle had been seized by the Transport Authority for alleged non-payment of AITP fees and absence of a valid permit, but no complaint, challan, or charge-sheet had been filed or proposed to be filed before the Magistrate.

Consequently, the Magistrate was not dealing with property pending a criminal proceeding and could not exercise jurisdiction under Section 497 BNSS.

Moreover, determining the validity of the permit, assessing outstanding permit fees and penalties, and deciding whether the statutory requirements for release had been fulfilled were matters within the statutory competence of the Transport Authority, not the criminal court.

The Court therefore found no jurisdictional or legal error in the Revisional Court’s order.

The jurisdiction to consider release lies with the Transport Authority or an officer authorised by the Government under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed, and the Revisional Court’s order dated 25.07.2026 was upheld.