In a significant decision, the Kerala High Court clarified that a JCB Excavator (JCB 81 Hitachi model) is a machine and not a vehicle, and therefore, its release cannot be denied on the grounds of lacking a registration certificate.
This ruling came from Justice V.G. Arun in Crl.MC No. 3104 of 2025, while hearing a plea filed by Shefeek Shajahan, who sought interim custody of the seized excavator.
Read also: Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
The excavator was taken into custody in connection with Crime No. 123/2025 at Vithura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The seizure followed a tragic incident in which the machine's operator died after it accidentally fell from a height while engaged in removing rubber wood from a property.
However, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Forest Offences), Nedumangad, rejected the plea for interim custody citing that the registration certificate and other ownership documents were not produced.
The petitioner argued that the Magistrate had misunderstood the matter by treating the excavator as a “vehicle” rather than a machine. He had submitted supporting documents including:
- Annexure 2 – Tax Invoice
- Annexure 3 – Sale Letter
- Annexure 4 – Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy
Justice Arun referred to past rulings, especially Rajesh v. State of Kerala (2020) and the Division Bench judgment in Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop [2004 KHC 56], which clearly distinguished between vehicles and machines like excavators.
“From the description in Annexure 4 (insurance policy) and the precedents, it is apparent that the seizure 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.” — Justice V.G. Arun
The prosecution had contended that the term ‘vehicle’ was used in the sale letter (Annexure 3), suggesting that the item in question is a vehicle. But the court did not agree.
Quoting the Motor Vehicles Act, the court highlighted that a “motor vehicle” refers to something meant for road use, which does not include machines used only in enclosed premises or construction work.
“A motor vehicle is one which is used ‘upon roads’, not for making roads. It has to be compulsorily registered.” — From Sales Tax Inspector v. Ittoop judgment
Based on this distinction, the High Court ruled that the Magistrate’s insistence on the registration certificate was misplaced, and all relevant documents submitted should have been duly considered.
As a result, the High Court:
- Quashed the Magistrate’s order (Annexure 5)
- Directed the Magistrate to reconsider the custody application (CMP No. 1099/2025)
- Ordered that a fresh decision be made within two weeks of receiving the court’s order
This verdict reinforces the judicial stance that construction and industrial machines, like the JCB excavator in this case, should not be mistaken as vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, and rightful possession should not be hindered due to misclassification.
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
