The findings and orders of competent criminal courts should be treated as conclusive in proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals like the Transport authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act.

P. CHANNAPPA VS. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE

( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, in subject no. 27 (d) dated 27-5-1961 suspending the state carriage permit of the business bearing No. MYU 3355 and the confirmation of that order, subject to reduction of period of suspension, by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 209 of 1961 dated 4-9-1961 and the further confirmation of the said order, again subject to further reduction of period of suspension, by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 956/61 (M. V ).

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are as follows: it is alleged that Business bearing No. MYU 3355, owned by the petitioner, was found carrying on 30-3-1961 as many as 84 passengers, while its seating capacity was only 36. In that connection, the conductor of the business was prosecuted in C. C. No. 2040/61 on the file of the City Magistrate, Mysore. The learned magistrate acquitted him holding that the charge levelled against him was not proved. He disbelieved the prosecution evidence as regards the alleged overloading. The said order of acquittal was made on 11-7-1961. The R. T. A. Mandya, proceeded against the petitioner in subject No. 27 (d) dated 27-5-61 on its file in respect of the alleged overloading of the business in question is true. Accordingly, it suspended the permit of the business in question for a period of seven months (from 1-6-61 to 31-12-61 ). Aggrieved by that order of the R. T. A. the petitioner went up in appeal to the State Transport appellate Tribunal. In appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal confirmed the findings of the R. T. A. as regard the alleged overloading but reduced the period of suspension from 7 months to 4 months. A second appeal was taken to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which in its turn agreed with the Tribunals below on the question of overloading but further reduced the period of suspension to three months. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the orders passed by the R. T. A. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the revenue Appellate Tribunal.

( 3 ) THIS petition came up for hearing on 23-9-1964. The respondents were not represented in the case. After hearing Srt. S. J. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, we though that this case raises and important question of law and hence we requested Sri. E. S. Venkataramiah to appear as an amicus curiae and assist us. He was good enough to accede to our request and we are thankful to him for his useful assistance. This day we have heard both Shri. S. J. Srinivasan and Sri. E. S. Venkataramiah at length. After hearing them, we have come to the conclusion that the orders impugned in this petition ought to be quashed. We shall presently state our reasons for reaching that conclusion.

( 4 ) AS mentioned earlier, the question, whether the business in question was overloaded on 30-3-1961 was a question that had been gone into in C. C. No. 2040/61 on the file of the City magistrate, Mysore. After weighing the evidence adduced in the case, the City Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is unacceptable and acquitted the accused. The acquittal in question was not on any technical ground. The question for decision is, whether after that decision, it was open to the Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to go into the question of the truth or otherwise of the charge of overloading over again and reach a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the Criminal Court. Is it just and fair for those tribunals to sit on judgment over the ordinary courts of the land?

( 5 ) A somewhat similar question came up for consideration before a Bench of the Madras High court, consisting of Rajamannar C. J. and Venkatarama Iyer, J. in Jerome D'

Click Here to Read the rest of this document