Consent of the accused is essential for compounding offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, as unilateral imposition is unauthorized and jurisdictionally invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the Confiscation Notice being Notice Memo No. SO2/2022 – 216/2022 dated 16.11.2022 to the extent the respondent No.2 has imposed a penalty of Rs.12,99,650/- under the provisions of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 in the form of compounding amount.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trailer bearing Registration No. NL 01AB 2179 belonging to the petitioner firm, loaded with HR Coil was plying under a National Permit from Jamshedpur, Jharkhand to Sambalpur, Odisha for the purpose of fulfilling a consignment which the petitioner firm was entrusted with by M/s Tata Steel Limited vide Consignment Note No.SP1375574085 dated 04.11.2022 for delivering the said goods contained in Annexure – 1 Series. He further submits that the said trailer was intercepted on 04.11.2022 by respondent No.2 while the vehicle was plying through the area falling under the jurisdiction of Saika Police Station located at Khunti, Jharkhand and thereafter the said vehicle was seized for alleged violation of the provisions of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001 and provisions of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. It was further informed by the respondent No.2 that the Road Tax for the State of Jharkhand with respect to the said vehicle was not paid. He then submits that aggrieved by the order of seizure of the vehicle and imposition of tax, the petitioner had preferred a writ being WPC No.6180 of 2022 before this Court. Pursuant to the notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on the said civil writ petition disclosing about the compoundable amount and pursuant to that the said writ petition was disposed of with observation that the separate cause of action is there and in view of that the separate writ petition is required to be filed pursuant to that the present writ petition has been filed. He submits that the said compounding was made unilaterally by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner has not given any consent and in absence of any consent the said notice is without jurisdiction. He submits that if the petitioner has not consented for the compounding that cannot be made and the petitioner is willing to face the trial, if a prosecution complaint is filed by the respondent State. To buttress his argument, he relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Ratnakar Rao and Others vs. Government of A.P. and Others , (1996) 5 SCC 359 and he refers to paragraph No.4 of the said judgment which is as under:-

4. The contention raised before the High Court and repeated before us by Shri Rajeev Dhavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the discretion given in Section 200 (1) of the Act is unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. Until an accused is convicted under Section 194, the right to levy penalty thereunder would not arise. When discretion is given to the court for compounding of the offence for the amount mentioned under Section 200 , it cannot be stratified by specified amount. It would, therefore, be clear that the exercise of power to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. For violation of Sections 113 to 115, Section 194 accords penal sanction and on conviction for violation thereof, the section sanctions punishment with fine as has been enumerated hereinbefore. The section would give guidance to the State Government as a delegate under the statute to