Back
1964 Supreme(Cal) 24
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amaresh Roy
STATE - Appellant
Versus
RAGHU RAM - Respondent
Criminal Ref 27 Of 1963
Decided On : JANUARY 31, 1964
BALAI CHANDRA ROY, TARINI PRASAD BAGCHI
A trial by Mobile Court on the road side is illegal and irregular, and any conviction and sentence passed by such a Court is invalid.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Trial by Mobile Court on road side - Illegalities and irregularities - Prejudice to accused - Conviction and sentence set aside.
Fact of the Case:
Two cases of conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate holding a Mobile Court on the road side were referred to the High Court by the Sessions Judge on the ground of illegalities and irregularities in the trial. The accused persons were convicted under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for carrying more passengers than the licenced capacity of the bus.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there were several illegalities and irregularities in the trial, including: * The accused persons were arrested and detained illegally. * No summons were issued or served on the accused persons. * The provisions of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act were not complied with. * The accused persons were denied their right to be defended by a lawyer of their choice. * The Magistrate sentenced the accused persons to imprisonment in default of payment of fine, even though the offence was punishable only by fine. * The trial was held in a manner that caused grave prejudice to the accused persons.
Issues: Whether the trial by Mobile Court on the road side was illegal and irregular. Whether the accused persons were prejudiced by the manner in which the trial was conducted. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial by Mobile Court on the road side was illegal and irregular, and that the accused persons were prejudiced by the manner in which the trial was conducted. The Court also held that the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate were invalid.
Final Decision: The High Court accepted the References and set aside the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. The accused persons were acquitted and the fines that had been paid were ordered to be refunded.
( 1 ) THESE two References under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code are by the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan, both made by him on the same date in respect of two orders of conviction and sentence passed by the same Magistrate of Assansol in two trials said to have been held in what has been described as "mobile Court" over which that learned Magistrate presided. The two cases have been heard together as they raise same questions of law.
( 2 ) IT appears from the letters of reference and also from the uncontroverted facts stated in the petitions made by the convicted persons before the learned Sessions Judge that on 7th February, 1963, a Magistrate Sri M. Chanda who was said to be the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Asansol was holding a Mobile Court on the road side. There in nothing however either in the orders or whole of the records to show that the said learned Magistrate was the sub-divisional Magistrate on either of the two dates of the two trials.
( 3 ) IN Reference No. 26 it appears that 013 22nd January, 1963, the two accused persons in that case were the driver Raghuram and Conductor Bhaskar Nayak of a passenger-motor-bus plying on the route. That bus bears the registration number. W. G. H. 3615 and is licenced to carry 30 passengers; but in violation of that condition, 36 passengers were being carried in the said bus at about 9. 30 Hrs. on 22nd January, 1963. A Sub-Inspector of the District Enforcement Branch arrested both the accused persons and brought them before the said Magistrate. A report for prosecution in P. R. B. form No. 41, signed by Officer-in-charge of Jamuria P. S. in the District of Burdwan was made to the Magistrate alleging offence under Section 112 Motor Vehicles Act, against both the accused persons. That gave rise to Case No. M. V. / 50 of 1963, in the Court of Magistrate-in-charge of M. V. Cases, Asansol. The Magistrate recorded only one order in the order-sheet by which he took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, directed issue of summons, recorded that both the accused appeared before him, substance of the accusation was explained to the accused persons, they pleaded guilty, and they were convicted under Section 112 M. V. Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-in default to S. I. for ten days, and also direction to note the conviction (in the licence presumably) and to inform L. A. (Licensing Authority? ). It may be mentioned that the whole order is in rubber-stamp impression in which only the appearance of the accused persons, section under which they were convicted and quantum of sentence have been entered by the hand of the learned Magistrate, who of course, signed it by his own hand. In the order sheet in the right hand column it has also been noted that the fine was paid. The Magistrate is mentioned there as only "magistrate, Asansol" and does not mention at all whether he was the Sub-divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate empowered either under Section 260 or 190 Criminal Procedure Code.
( 4 ) IN the Reference No. 27, it appears that on 7th February, 1963, the same Driver Raghuram and another conductor Mam Lal Barman were plying the same bus W. G. II. 3615 with 50 passengers, instead of licenced capacity of 30 persons and was going towards Barakar at 8. 15 Hrs. Sub-Inspector S. K. Gupta of D. E. B. arrested and produced them before the Magistrate who appears to have held a Mobile Court on that date also on the road side. A report for prosecution in the same form No. 41 signed by Officer-in-charge of Kulti F. S. was made to the Magistrate who made exactly similar order by filling up a rubber-stamp impression in all its details, except that in this ease the sentence against each of the accused was Rs. 30/-in default S. I. for fifteen days in Case No. M. V. / 117 of 1963, in the Court of Magistrate in charge M. V. Cases, Asansol.
( 5 ) THE Sessions Judge was moved on 21-2-1963, in both the cases, one being numbered Case No. 2
