Shefeek Shajahan v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 KER 30578
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.G. Arun
Date of Decision: April 8, 2025
Case Number: CRL.MC No. 3104 of 2025

Interim custody of seized excavator – Distinction between vehicle and machinery – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(28) – Registration requirements.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application for interim custody of a seized JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator, wrongly treated as a vehicle by the Magistrate. The High Court held that the excavator, a hydraulic machine, does not fall under the definition of a “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it is not adapted for use on roads and is not subject to mandatory registration. Relying on precedents in Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [2004 KHC 56] and Rajesh v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC 414], the Court quashed the Magistrate’s order, directing reconsideration of the application based on submitted documents (tax invoice, sale letter, and insurance policy) without insisting on a registration certificate.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; Magistrate’s order quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration within two weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Shefeek Shajahan, sought interim custody of a JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator seized in connection with Crime No. 123/2025 at Vithura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Section 306(1)(c)(MA) of the Police Standing Order. The seizure followed an incident where the excavator’s operator died after the machine fell from a height while removing rubber wood. The petitioner’s application for interim custody (CMP No. 1099/2025) was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III (Forest Offences), Nedumangad, on the erroneous assumption that the excavator was a vehicle, requiring a registration certificate. The petitioner provided a tax invoice, sale letter, and insurance policy to prove ownership but was denied relief. He challenged the dismissal order (Annexure 5) before the High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator is a “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requiring registration.
2. Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application for interim custody by insisting on a registration certificate.

Arguments

• Petitioner: Argued that the Magistrate misconstrued the excavator as a vehicle, despite the petitioner providing Annexure 2 (tax invoice), Annexure 3 (sale letter), and Annexure 4 (insurance policy) to establish ownership. Cited Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [2004 KHC 56] and Rajesh v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC 414] to assert that hydraulic excavators are machinery, not vehicles, and are exempt from registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• Respondent (State): Contended that the sale letter (Annexure 3) referred to the excavator as a “vehicle,” justifying its classification as such and the requirement for registration documents.

Holding

The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, quashing the Magistrate’s order. The Court held that the JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator, as evidenced by the insurance policy (Annexure 4) termed as a Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy, is a machine, not a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court relied on Rajesh v. State of Kerala and Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop, which clarified that motor vehicles are mechanically propelled vehicles adapted for road use and subject to mandatory registration under Section 39, whereas excavators are specialized machinery used in enclosed premises or for specific tasks like digging, not road travel. The reference to “vehicle” in the sale letter was deemed insufficient to override the legal distinction. The Magistrate’s insistence on a registration certificate was erroneous, and the submitted documents (Annexures 2, 3, and 4) should have been considered for deciding interim custody.

Disposition

The Court quashed Annexure 5 (Magistrate’s order) and directed the Judicial Magistrate to reconsider CMP No. 1099/2025 based on the Court’s observations and pass orders within two weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Key Precedents

• Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [2004 KHC 56]: Defined motor vehicles under Section 2(28) as vehicles adapted for road use, excluding machinery like excavators.
• Rajesh v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC 414]: Held that a Bobcat Excavator is not a vehicle and is not subject to registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Significance

The case reinforces the legal distinction between vehicles and machinery under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that courts must evaluate ownership documents appropriately and not impose irrelevant requirements like registration for non-vehicular machinery in custody disputes.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary issue in Shefeek Shajahan v. State of Kerala (2025 : KER: 30578)?
   a) Validity of the seizure of the excavator
   b) Classification of a JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator as a vehicle or machinery
   c) Compensation for the operator’s death
   d) Jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate
   Answer: b) Classification of a JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator as a vehicle or machinery
2. Which legal provision was central to determining whether the excavator required registration?
   a) Section 306 b) Section 306(1)(c)(MA) of the Police Standing Order
   c) Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
   d) Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
   Answer: c) Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
3. What documents did the petitioner submit to prove ownership of the excavator?
   a) Registration certificate, tax invoice, and insurance policy
   b) Tax invoice, sale letter, and insurance policy
   c) Sale letter, driving license, and FIR
   d) Insurance policy, FIR, and registration certificate
   Answer: b) Tax invoice, sale letter, and insurance policy
4. Which precedent was relied upon to distinguish between a vehicle and a machine?
   a) State of Kerala v. Rajesh [2020 (5) KHC 414]
   b) Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [2004 KHC 56]
   c) Vithura Police Station v. Shefeek
   d) Nedumangad Magistrate v. State
   Answer: b) Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [2004 KHC 56]
5. What was the outcome of the High Court’s decision in CRL.MC No. 3104 of 2025?
   a) The petitioner was denied interim custody
   b) The Magistrate’s order was upheld
   c) The Magistrate’s order was quashed, and the case was remanded for reconsideration
   d) The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction
   Answer: c) The Magistrate’s order was quashed, and the case was remanded for reconsideration

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the case Shefeek Shajahan v. State of Kerala about?
   The case involved a challenge to the dismissal of the petitioner’s application for interim custody of a seized JCB 81 Hitachi Excavator. The Judicial Magistrate wrongly classified the excavator as a vehicle and demanded a registration certificate, despite the petitioner providing a tax invoice, sale letter, and insurance policy. The High Court clarified that the excavator was machinery, not a vehicle, and quashed the Magistrate’s order.
2. Why was the excavator seized?
   The excavator was seized in connection with Crime No. 123/2025 at Vithura Police Station, following an accident where the operator died after the machine fell from a height while removing rubber wood.
3. What is the legal definition of a “motor vehicle” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
   Under Section 2(28), a “motor vehicle” is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads, excluding vehicles running on fixed rails, those used only in factories or enclosed premises, or vehicles with less than four wheels and an engine capacity not exceeding 25 cubic centimeters.
4. Why was the Magistrate’s order quashed?
   The Magistrate erred by treating the excavator as a vehicle and insisting on a registration certificate, which is not required for machinery like hydraulic excavators. The High Court found that the Magistrate failed to consider the petitioner’s submitted documents (tax invoice, sale letter, and insurance policy) and relied on an incorrect legal premise.
5. What role did the precedents Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop and Rajesh v. State of Kerala play in the decision?
   These cases clarified that hydraulic excavators, like the JCB 81 Hitachi, are not “motor vehicles” under the Motor Vehicles Act, as they are not adapted for road use. They supported the petitioner’s argument that registration was not required, and the Magistrate should not have demanded a registration certificate.
6. What was the High Court’s directive to the Magistrate?
   The High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner’s application (CMP No. 1099/2025) based on the Court’s observations, particularly the distinction between vehicles and machinery, and to pass orders within two weeks of receiving the judgment.
7. What documents can be used to prove ownership of machinery like an excavator?
   In this case, the petitioner provided a tax invoice, a sale letter, and an insurance policy (Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy) to establish ownership. These were deemed sufficient for the Court to consider interim custody, unlike a registration certificate required for vehicles.
8. Is a hydraulic excavator required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act?
   No, a hydraulic excavator is not a “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it is not adapted for use on roads. Therefore, it is not subject to mandatory registration under Section 39.
9. What is the significance of this case?
   The case establishes that courts must correctly distinguish between vehicles and machinery when adjudicating custody disputes. It emphasizes that ownership of machinery can be proven through documents like invoices, sale letters, and insurance policies, without requiring registration certificates inapplicable to non-vehicular equipment.
10. Can the State argue that a machine is a vehicle based on terminology in a sale letter?
    The High Court rejected the State’s argument that the term “vehicle” in the sale letter justified classifying the excavator as a motor vehicle. The legal definition under the Motor Vehicles Act and the nature of the equipment (as evidenced by the insurance policy) prevailed over informal terminology in the sale letter.