The operative directions in the common award of the MACT, Kozhikode impugned in these appeals present a rather disquieting and disturbing feature. Those directions demonstrate the lack of sensitivity on the part of the Tribunal in casting unjustified stigmas against a member of the legal profession.

2. The common appellant in these appeals is an Advocate by profession ordinarily practising in the Courts at Kozhikode. In these appeals filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C, the appellant challenges the prosecution ordered against him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT for short), Kozhikode in O.P (M.V) Nos.442 and 576 of 2004. As per the impugned common award, the Tribunal has ordered prosecution against the claimants and their counsel (the appellant herein) by directing the Sheristhadar of the Tribunal to file separate complaints against the claimants therein as well as their counsel (the appellant herein) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. In compliance of the said order two separate complaints have been lodged against the appellant before the C.J.M seeking to prosecute him for offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 463, 464 and 468 IPC. The C.J.M in turn, has made over the complaints to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -I ( JFCM for short ), Kozhikode and the complaint in O.P(M.V) No.442 of 2004 has been registered as C.C.No.396 of 2009 and the complaint arising from O.P.(M.V) No.576 of 2004 has been registered as C.C.No.684 of 2009.

3. O.P.(M.V)No.442 of 2004 before the Tribunal below was filed by the widow, son and daughter (shown as respondent No.3 in the O.P.) of one Moideen Koya who was allegedly killed on 12.1.2004 in a motor accident involving a collision between a tempo van and a tempo trax. The deceased and one Aminabi were travelling in the tempo van shown as bearing Reg.No.TN 2303 which was proceeding from Kozhikode to Madras. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the tempo trax which came from the opposite direction and bearing Reg.No.TN 38/Z-3737 of which the New India Assurance Company was the insurer and one K.R.Velumani was the owner. The accident took place within the limits of Maghudanchavadi Police Station where the crime was registered as FIR No.25/2004 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. O.P.(M.V)No.576 of 2004 was filed by Aminabi, who was a co-passenger along with Moideenkoya in the tempo van referred to above, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her. As mentioned earlier, both the O.P(M.V)s were filed on the footing that it was the driver of the other vehicle (tempo trax) of which Velumani was the owner and the New India Assurance Company was the insurer who was negligent resulting in the collision culminating in the death of Moideen Koya and the sustaining of injuries by Aminabi.

4. The New India Assurance Company filed a counter, inter alia, contending that the number of the vehicle which was involved in the accident on 12.1.2001 was not TN 2303 but was TN23/X-8145 and the other vehicle namely the tempo trax bearing Registration No.TN 38/Z 3737 was insured with the New India Assurance Company. Thereupon the appellant who was appearing for the claimants in the above two O.P (M.V)s filed separate applications with his own affidavit for correcting the number TN 2303 as TN 23/X-8145. I.A.No.1562 of 2005 was an application filed in O.P.(M.V.) No.442 of 2004 to correct the number of the vehicle as TN 23/X 8145 instead of TN 2303. Likewise, I.A.No.1808 of 2005 was an application filed in O.P. (M.V) No.576 of 2004 to make the very same correction regarding the said vehicle. The appellant filed an affidavit in support of both the applications stating, inter alia, that it was a clerical mistake and not a wilful act on his part. Both these applications were allowed. Thereafter, on 31.12.2005 an interim award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 f