# Rajendra Prasad v. Bashir and another - **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 771 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-05-28 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 3758 of 2003 - **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-v-bashir-and-another-40197 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article 226 Transfer whether an employee holding cadre post be transferred to the ex-cadre post without his consent? ## Text http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Baij Nath Prajapati V. State of U.P. and others 771 Rajendra Prasad Vs. Bashir and another 2002, Cr.L. J. 90. 7. In Laxmi Bai Patel's case (supra) it has been held that: "The position is well settled that in such a case power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the; High Court in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances where the court finds that permitting the impugned order to remain undisturbed will amount to abuse of process of the court and will result in failure of justice." 8. Thus, the conclusion which can be drawn, by going through above authorities is that once the revision of a party has been dismissed, if the revision by him is barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. he can not take recourse to the inherent powers of this Court but in rare cases where there is great miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court, the inherent power can be invoked. 9. As per the facts of this case the brother of the applicants had lodged FIR against opposite party no. 3 and others and as counter blast the present complaint has come up. I have perused the order of the revisional court which show that the Magistrate summoned the accused considering the statement of complainant examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate also considered the injury report. There is nothing on record to even suggest that the summoning order has in any way resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The order is based on consideration of the prima facie evidence as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 10. The revisional court considered the matter in the right perspective. The impugned order does not show any abuse of the process of the Court hence power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be invoked. 11. The application is therefore devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.5.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 3758 of 2003 Baij Nath Prajapati ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri S.K. Dubey Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Criminal procedure Code 1808-Section 482-vehicle seized by ARTO- Application for release rejected-Held- No seized vehicle can keep for a long periodDirection to Transport authorities to pass appropriate order and release vehicle. Held- Para 5 In view of the aforesaid decision, facts and law, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the A.R.T.O., Jaunpur is directed to consider and pass appropriate order on the application of the applicant for releasing the vehicleMaxi Cab Jeep No. WE:20-B:0332 after deposit of adequate security except cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the A.R.T.O. within a period of two http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 weeks from the date of filing of the application by the applicant. Case Law: 2003 (46) ACC 223 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard the counsel for the applicant and the A.G.A. 2. The applicant has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the orders dated 10.12.2002 and 4.2.2003 passed by the court-below in Misc. Case No. 52 of 2003 State Vs. Baij Nath Prajapati under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, by which it has refused to release the vehicle- Maxi Cab Jeep No. WS 20B:0332 in favour of the applicant. 3. The applicant is a registered owner of the vehicle. The alleged Maxi Cab Jeep of the applicant was seized by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) Jaunpur on 19.11.2002. Under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is provided that: "(2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose." 4. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223, the Apex Court has held that it is no use to keep the seized vehicles for a long period. They may be released immediately after taking appropriate security, if not required at that point of time. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision, facts and law, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the A.R.T.O., Jaunpur is directed to consider and pass appropriate order on the application of the applicant for releasing the vehicle-Maxi Cab Jeep No. WE:20-B:0332 after deposit of adequate security except cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the A.R.T.O. within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application by the applicant. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of finally. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45445 of 2000 Ranbir Singh Malik, A.S.I.O. Hathras ...Petitioner Versus Inspector General of Police and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Divakar Rai Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India-Article 226 Transfer whether an employee holding cadre post be transferred to the ex-cadre post without his consent?