Back
1979 Supreme(Ori) 91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
J.K. Mohanty., J.
GOBARDHAN MOHAPATRA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE - RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision No. 284 of 1978 (from an order dated 22.7.1978 passed by Shri A.H. Khan, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasore, in U.I. Case No. 544 of 1978)
Decided On : 04-12-1979
M/s G.P. Mohanty and H.N. Mohapatra, Advocates, for the Appellants; Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent
The maximum punishment under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for offences punishable under the same section is Rs. 100, and Rs. 300 only in cases of previous conviction.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 112 - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - TRIAL BEYOND COURT HOURS - MOBILE COURTS - PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, driver and conductor of a tourist vehicle, were convicted under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for various offences, including lack of authorization slip, improper black-shading of front lights, absence of trip-sheet, and improper maintenance of first aid box. They were fined Rs. 500 each, in default, four months' simple imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the magistrate had acted illegally and beyond his jurisdiction in imposing a fine of Rs. 500 on each petitioner, as the maximum punishment under section 112 of the Act was Rs. 100, and Rs. 300 only in cases of previous conviction, which was not established in this case. The court also noted that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence at 7.30 p.m., beyond the court hours.
Issues: 1. Whether the magistrate had the jurisdiction to impose a fine of Rs. 500 on each petitioner under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, when the maximum punishment prescribed was Rs. 100, and Rs. 300 only in cases of previous conviction, which was not established in this case? 2. Whether the magistrate had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence at 7.30 p.m., beyond the court hours?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the magistrate had acted illegally and beyond his jurisdiction in imposing a fine of Rs. 500 on each petitioner, as the maximum punishment under section 112 of the Act was Rs. 100, and Rs. 300 only in cases of previous conviction, which was not established in this case. 2. The court also held that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence at 7.30 p.m., beyond the court hours, unless it was an extraordinary situation and the accused did not object to such a trial.
Final Decision: The court reduced the sentence of fine passed against each of the petitioners to Rs. 100 only, and directed the refund of the balance amount already realized. The magistrate was cautioned to be careful in future.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Mohanty, J. - Petitioner No. 1 Gobardhan Mohapatra and petitioner No. 2 Ram Chandra Das, who were the driver and conductor respectively of motor vehicle No. O.R.B. 2504, have been convicted under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to S.I. for months each by Shri A.H. Khan, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasore, in a mobile Court. The fine was realised at the spot.
The allegation against the petitioners is that on 22-7-1978 at about 7.30 p.m. they were plying the All India Tourist vehicle O.R.B. 2504 of which there was no authorisation slip of the owner to the cash conductor, the front lights were not properly black-shaded, there was no trip-sheet and the first aid box was not properly maintained. The S.I. of Town Police-Station, Balasore, stopped the vehicle and produced the accused persons before Shri A.H. Khan, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasore, who was holding mobile Court at Kuruda Chouk. It is alleged that the accused persons were convicted under section 112 of the Act as they pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to S.I. for four months each.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following points :
(1) That the maximum punishment provided for offences punishable under section 112 of the Act is fine of Rs. 100/- and if the accused has been previously convicted of any offence under the Act and is again convicted under the same Act, the maximum punishment will be fine of Rs. 300/-. But in this case even though no previous conviction had been established, the learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to S.I. for four months on each of the petitioners which is illegal and without jurisdiction.
(2) That the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence at 7.30 p.m., which is beyond the Court hours.
(3) That the learned Magistrate has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
(4) That petitioner No. 2 not being the conductor of the vehicle but a guide for the tourists carried by the vehicle and as no conductor is attached to a contract carriage, the fine imposed on him is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction.
3. Section 112 of the Act provides punishment of offences in cases where contravention of any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules is made, if no other penalty is provided for the offence. Section 112 of the Act is quoted below :
"112. General provision for punishment offences -
Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or if having been previously convicted of any offence under this Act he is again convicted of an offence under this Act, with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees."
Thus, from the provisions of section 112 of the Act it is clear that for offences punishable under the same section the maximum fine that can be imposed is Rs. 100/- and in cases of previous conviction being proved the fine will be extended to Rs. 300/-. In this case admittedly no previous conviction has been established. So the maximum fine that could have been imposed by the learned Magistrate is Rs. 100/-. It is not understood how the Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the accused persons. This shows that the Magistrate has acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and has acted beyond his jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Mohanty next contended that Rule 1 of the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa, Criminal Volume I Chapter I provides that the Court hours shall ordinarily be from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. But in this case the Magistrate was holding mobile Court at 7.30 p.m. which should not have done and hence the trial of the petitioners is illegal. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Additional
