Kerala High Court quashes Magistrate’s order on JCB custody | Machine not a vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V G Arun allowed a criminal miscellaneous case and quashed the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class III Nedumangad. The Court directed that the matter concerning interim custody of the machine seized in connection with the registered crime be reconsidered afresh. The learned Magistrate has been ordered to reconsider the application seeking interim custody of the machine based on the observations of the Court and pass appropriate orders. The decision was rendered upon holding that the earlier order rejecting interim custody was rendered on a wrong premise and warranted interference.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class III Nedumangad. The grievance arose from the rejection of an application seeking interim custody of a machine. The machine in question was a JCB 81 Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator. It was seized in connection with Crime Number 123 of 2025 registered at Vithura Police Station Thiruvananthapuram District. The offence registered was under Section 306 sub clause 1 sub clause c bracket MA of the Police Standing Orders.
According to the case, the machine was engaged in removing rubber wood pieces from a property when it accidentally fell from a height. This incident resulted in the death of the operator of the machine. Following the incident, the machine was seized as part of the investigation into the registered crime.
The petitioner had filed an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking interim custody of the seized machine. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application through Annexure 5 order. The order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the registration certificate and other supporting documents establishing ownership of the machine. The Magistrate observed that since the petitioner did not produce the registration certificate, interim custody could not be granted.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without appreciating the fact that the seized item was a machine and not a motor vehicle. The counsel argued that the petitioner had produced sufficient documents in support of the claim for interim custody. The documents included Annexure 2 tax invoice, Annexure 3 sale letter and Annexure 4 insurance certificate. The counsel also contended that there was a fundamental distinction between a vehicle and a machine such as a hydraulic excavator.
In support of this contention, reliance was placed on judgments of the High Court. The counsel referred to the decision in Sales Tax Inspector versus Ittoop reported in 2004 Kerala High Court Cases 56. In that case, it was held that a machine such as a mechanical paver was not a vehicle. Further reliance was placed on Rajesh versus State of Kerala reported in 2020 volume five Kerala High Court Cases 414. In that judgment also it was held that a Bobcat excavator was not a vehicle and therefore not liable to registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent opposed the petition. The Public Prosecutor pointed out that in the sale letter marked as Annexure 3 the machine was referred to as a vehicle. It was submitted that the description used indicated that the item seized was in fact treated as a vehicle. However the counsel did not dispute that the insurance certificate of the machine issued in the name of the petitioner described the machine as a hydraulic excavator and the insurance policy was issued under the Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy.
The Court carefully examined the records and rival submissions. It observed in clear terms "From the description in Annexure 4 and the precedents it is apparent that the seizure is of a machine and not a vehicle."
The Court recorded that "As such there cannot be an insistence on production of registration certificate along with the application seeking its release." The Court noted that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the documents placed on record including the tax invoice, sale letter and insurance certificate for deciding whether interim custody could be granted.
The Court stated "On the other hand the learned Magistrate ought to have considered Annexures 2, 3 and 4 for deciding whether interim custody can be granted to the petitioner." The Court observed that the distinction between a vehicle and a machine such as a hydraulic excavator was well settled in law. It referred to the judgments cited by the petitioner to reinforce this point.
In this context the Court recorded "This Court in Rajesh has held that a Bobcat Excavator is not a vehicle and is therefore not liable to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act." The Court also noted that this decision was rendered following the judgment of the Division Bench in Sales Tax Inspector.
The Court further quoted from the Division Bench decision. It observed "A motor vehicle is one which is used upon roads not for making the roads. It has to be compulsorily registered." The Court thus accepted the contention of the petitioner that the Magistrate had proceeded on a wrong premise by treating the machine as a vehicle.
The Court summed up the discussion by recording "For the aforementioned reasons the Crl.M.C is allowed and Annexure 5 order is quashed." It further directed that the Magistrate shall reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody in the light of the observations of the High Court.
The High Court concluded the matter by issuing the following directions:
The Court directed that the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class III Nedumangad shall stand quashed: “For the aforementioned reasons the Crl.M.C is allowed and Annexure 5 order is quashed.”
The Court further directed the Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner’s application for interim custody of the seized machine. It mandated that such reconsideration should be done in accordance with the law and in light of the observations contained in the judgment. The Court also stipulated that the Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of production of the judgment.
“The learned Magistrate shall reconsider CMP No.1099 of 2025 based on the observations above and pass orders thereon within two weeks of production of a copy of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: S Nikhil Sankar Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt Pushpalatha M K Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shefeek Shajahan versus State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025 KER 30578
Case Number: Crl.M.C No. 3104 of 2025
Bench: Justice V G Arun
[Read/Download order]
