The main legal point established is that the submission of a prosecution report without allowing the accused to produce the required documents and without specifying the violations is not proper and justified.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner Gobardhan Seth has filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding in U.C. Case No.115 of 2002 arising out of Sonepur P.S. non-F.I.R. Case No.15 of 2002 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur in which basing on the prosecution report submitted by the officer in charge of Sonepur Police Station on dated 28.06.2002, cognizance of offences under sections 177 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘1988 Act’) was taken.

2. According to the prosecution report, on 28.06.2002 at about 12.05 p.m. when the officer in charge of Sonepur Police Station checked the Hyundai Accent vehicle bearing registration No.OR-03-A-6888 plying from Bolangir side to Sonepur side at Arjunpur Chhak, being driven by the petitioner in presence of the witnesses, he found that the front light of the vehicle had not been blackened and the petitioner was not possessing the original driving licence.

3. Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphatically and in his inimitable style contended that on the relevant day when the petitioner was proceeding towards Bhubaneswar from Bolangir in the vehicle bearing registration No.OR-03-A-6888, it was stopped by some police officials including the officer in charge of Sonepur Police Station for checking inside the forest which falls in between to Bolangir to Sonepur. Learned counsel further contended that even though all the relevant documents were produced by the petitioner before the police officials but the petitioner was forcibly taken and produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Sonepur who was holding Mobile Court at the spot. The learned S.D.J.M. after perusing the prosecution report not only took cognizance of offences under sections 177 and 181 of 1988 Act but also asked the petitioner as to whether he pleads guilty or not and when the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the learned S.D.J.M. asked the petitioner to execute a P.R. bond and further told that unless P.R. bond is executed, he would be remanded to custody. When the petitioner expressed his helplessness to execute the P.R. bond due to its non-availability and requested the learned Magistrate to give him some time, he was directed by the learned Magistrate to appear before him in the Court on 02.07.2002 and accordingly on the date fixed, the petitioner appeared and was released after executing P.R. bond and the prosecution report was also supplied to him. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations made in the prosecution report regarding non-blackening of the front light of the vehicle and non-availability of original driving licence with the petitioner are false and fabricated. It is contended that on the very day after about two hours, the very same vehicle was checked by the ASI of Boudh Police Station who did not notice any such defect as pointed out in the prosecution report filed by the officer in charge, Sonepur Police Station, on the other hand the prosecution report was submitted by the ASI of Boudh Police Station indicating therein that there was no bulb, horn and no pollution certificate of the vehicle and a prayer was made for prosecuting the petitioner under sections 177 and 190(2) of the 1988 Act in connection with Boudh P.S. non-F.I.R. Case No.54 of 2002. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no time was given to the petitioner to produce the original driving licence and the learned Magistrate mechanically accepted the prosecution report and asked the petitioner to execute the P.R. bond. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the allegation against the petitioner was for commission of non-cognizable offences, he should not have been forcibly detained by the police officials and produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Sonepur. It is further contended that the holding of the Mobile Court inside the jungle is unconstituti