- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- JCB Excavator Is A Machine Not...
JCB Excavator Is A Machine Not Vehicle, Can't Insist On Production Of Registration Certificate For Seeking Release: Kerala High Court
Manju Elsa Isac
1 May 2025 7:02 PM IST
The Kerala High Court recently held that a JCB Excavator 81 Hitachi is a Machine and is not a vehicle and hence there cannot be an insistence on producing its registration certificate while seeking the release of the machine. Justice V. G. Arun relied on the High Court decision in Rajesh v State of Kerala (2020) where it was held that a Bob Cat excavator is not a vehicle and therefore is...
The Kerala High Court recently held that a JCB Excavator 81 Hitachi is a Machine and is not a vehicle and hence there cannot be an insistence on producing its registration certificate while seeking the release of the machine.
Justice V. G. Arun relied on the High Court decision in Rajesh v State of Kerala (2020) where it was held that a Bob Cat excavator is not a vehicle and therefore is not liable to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act.
"From the description in Annexure 4 (insurance policy) and the precedents, it is apparent that the siezure is of a machine and not a vehicle. As such, there cannot be an insistence on production of registration certificate along with the application seeking its release. On the other hand, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered Annexures 2(tax invoice), 3 (sale letter) and 4 (insurance policy) for deciding whether interim custody can be granted to the petitioner," the court said.
The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the Magistrate's order denying an application for interim custody of the excavator. The excavator was seized in connection with a crime registered in relation to an incident, in which the operator of the machine died, when the machine accidentally fell from a height while engaged in the process of removing pieces of rubber wood from a property.
The Magistrate denied the application saying that the registration certificate and other documents to prove ownership of the vehicle was not produced before the Court. The petitioner contended that the order is made on the wrong premise that the petitioner was seeking release of a 'vehicle'.
The Public Prosecutor however disputed this argument by saying that the expression 'vehicle' was used in the sale letter which is indicative of the fact that seizure is not of a machine but a vehicle.
The Court observed that the Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy taken in connection with the excavator would show that it was a machine. Therefore, the Court held that the Magistrate cannot insist on production of registration certificate along with the application seeking release of the excavator.
The Court allowed the petition directing the Magistrate to reconsider the application and pass order within 2 weeks.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv S. Nikhil Sankar
Counsel for Respondents: Adv. Pushpalatha M. K. (Sr. PP)
Case No: Crl.MC 3104 of 2025
Case Title: Shafeek Shajahan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
Click Here To Read/ Download Order