Uday Sinha, J.

1. These two applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been heard together as Pashupati Nath Sinha is the petitioner in both the applications as also the substantial point urged on behalf of the petitioner is common to both the applications. The prayer in both the applications is to quash the prosecution of the petitioner pending in the Court of Shri R. C. Choudhary, Special Judicial Magistrate (Transport), bhagalpur.

2. On 10-12-1974, C. B. Pandey, Enforcement Officer submitted a report before the learned Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner under sections 112 and 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with rule 87 (4) of the Motor vehicles Rules. The infractions alleged in the prosecution report (annexure-1)were (i) carrying excess passengers, (ii) want of partition in drivers seat, (iii)the details not noted on body as required by rule 27, (iv) no wind screen wiper in the truck, and (v) speedometer out of order. On receipt of this prosecution report the learned Special Judicial Magi strate took cognizance of offences under sections 112 and 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed issuance of summons to the petitioner, who was the owner of the truck bearing No. BRH-2375 and the driver thereof by order dated 12-12-1974. This prosecution became subject-matter of Case No.1235 of 1974. On failure of the accused to appear in answer to the summons, the learned Magistrate issued bailable warrant of arrest against them. The case was thereafter adjourned to 5-7-1975. The order-sheet of 5-7-1975 shows that processes had not been served upon the accused yet the learned Magistrate directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the" learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest moved this Court on 23-9-1975 for quashing his prosecution. That gave rise to Criminal miscellaneous No.3456 of 1975.

3. Criminal Miscellaneous No.3459 of 1975 had its origin in a prosecution report dated 6-2-1975 filed by the very same Enforcement Officer, c. B. Pandey against the very same petitioner and in respect of the same truck. In this prosecution report filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate the alleged infractions were (i) failure to produce registration certificates and certificate of fitness as required by section 86 (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act and rules 22 and 38, and (ii) absence of driving licence which amounted to contravention of rules 3 (1), 5 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. These statutory infractions were found on a check of the truck on 6-2-1975 at Bariarpur. The checking in the earlier case had been done on 7-12-1974. In this case also the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the report of C. B. Pandey, Enforcement officer. The driver Ram Balak Yadav was present and admitted his guilt. He was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Summons was ordered to be issued upon the petitioner. In this case also, the petitioner not having appeared, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of bailable warrant of arrest followed by non-bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous no.3459 of 1975 for quashing his prosecution in Case No.145 of 1975.

4. These two applications were listed before A. Ahmad, J. In view of the importance of the point urged on behalf of the petitioner, his Lordship directed the cases to be placed before a Division Bench for hearing. The cases have thus been listed before us for final disposal.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate shri R. C. Choudhary had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on the basis of the report filed by the Enforcement Officer C. B. Pandey. It was contended that the conferment of powers of Special Magistrates upon