SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.PADMANABHAN
C. P. Pocker – Appellant
Versus
S. I. of Police – Respondent


Advocates:
M/s. M.P.M. Aslam & E. Gangadharam,
Advocate-For the petitioner.
Public Prosecutor -For the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

S. Padmanabban, J. - In S.T. Case No. 4059 of 1985 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate I. Kozhikode the petitioner was prosecuted for certain offences punishable under the general provision for punishment of offences contained in section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for violations of certain provisions of the rules. The offences do not come under part A of the Fifth Schedule. The offences punishable with fine only and not with imprisonment.

2. Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads:

“130. Summary disposal of cases. The Court taking cognizance of an offence under this Act.-

(i) may, if the offence is an offence punishable with imprisonment under Act, and

(ii) shall, in any other case

state upon the summons to be served on the accused person, that he.-

(a) may appear by pleader and not in person, or

(b) may, by a specified date, prior to the hearing of the charge, plead guilty to the charge, by registered letter, and remit to the Court such sum (not exceeding the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence) as the Court may specify:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any offence specified in part A of the fifth Schedu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top