Back
1967 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 19
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
A.B. Sharma, J
Raj Kumar Chauhan v. State
Reference Case
For the Appellant: Mr. Kar
For the Respondent:Government Advocate
Improper issuance of summons violating mandatory provisions rendered the conviction under Motor Vehicles Act illegal, necessitating its annulment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 112 and 130(1) - Illegality in summon issuance - Petitioner convicted under Section 112 for driving with excessive passengers without following the prescribed procedures in Section 130(1) - The summons did not inform accused rights to appear through counsel or plead guilty via registered letter, violating mandatory provisions - Thus, the conviction under Section 112 was ruled illegal. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Fair Trial - The importance of adhering to procedural laws is emphasized; mobile courts that neglect proper summons issuance prejudices defendants' rights. (Paras 1-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was summoned and convicted for excessive passengers, but procedural errors led to an improper trial and conviction.
Findings of Court:
The trial procedure violated the law leading to undue prejudice against the accused. Hence, the conviction was set aside.
Issues: The legality of the summons issued, proper procedures for minor offences, and defendants' rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that non-compliance with Section 130(1) led to an illegal conviction, affirming the necessity for proper legal procedures to uphold justice.
Result: The order of conviction and sentence was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference made questioning legality of summons and conviction. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court's resolution of illegal conviction and subsequent acquittal. (Para 2 , 14 , 17) |
| 3. mandatory compliance needed for summons under section 130. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. defendants' rights regarding legal representation and summons process. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. impact of procedural irregularities on fair trial with mention of mobile courts. (Para 10 , 11 , 13) |
1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Tripura recommending that the summons issued on the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 12-2-65, is not in accordance with law and the order passed on 7-3-65 is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such the order of conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner under S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be set aside.
2. The facts which gave rise to this reference briefly stated are these : On 31-1-65 the O. C., Fatekrey P. S. made a report for prosecution of the accused petitioner Rajkumar Chauhan under S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that the petitioner was found driving the truck TRL - 635 from north to south along Assam - Agartala road at Beheherra with 3 passengers excluding the driver and his assistant. On receipt of the said prosecution report the S. D. M., Kailashahar by his order dated 12-2-65, transferred the case for disposal to the file of Shri M. L. Das, Magistrate 2nd Class who passed an order on the same date for issue of summons to the accused to the following effect :
"Received the case on transfer from S. D. M., Kailashahar. Issue summons to the accused fixing 25-2-65. Mention Rs. 20 to remit as fine if he pleads guilty."
Thereafter a summons was served upon the petitioner asking him to appear before the learned Magistrate on 25-2-65; but in the summons it was not mentioned that the petitioner was to remit Rs. 20 as fine, if he pleaded guilty.
On receipt of the summons the accused petitioner filed an application for revision with the summons attached before the Sessions Judge praying for quashing of proceedings on the ground that the summons was vague. The application for revision was not accompanied by the order of the learned Magistrate, therefore, on the prayer of the learned lawyer for the petitioner, the Sessions Judge granted the petitioner time till 25-3-65 for filing a certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate.
Accordingly the petitioner obtained and filed a certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 12-2-65. In the meantime on 25-2-65, the learned Magistrate passed an order to the following effect :
"Issue of fresh summons upon the accused person. To 19-3-65."
This order was followed by another order dated 7-3-65 passed by the learned Magistrate which is as follows :
"Accused Rajkumar Chauhan available at Manu Camp, he is examined u/s. 242, Cri. P. C. by stating substance of accusation who pleaded guilty. He is convicted u/s. 112, M. V. Act and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 20 in default 5 days' R. I. Fine amount is deposited."
3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the lawyers has made this reference recommending that the order dated 12-2-65 is not in accordance with law and the order dated 7-3-63 is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such it should be set aside.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while supporting the reference vehemently contended that S. 130 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, provides that a Court taking cognizance of an offence under this Act, shall, unless the offence is an offence specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule, state upon the summons to be served on the accused person, that he -
(a) may appear by Pleader and not in person, or
(b) may by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge plead guilty to the charge by registered letter, and remit to the Court such sum not exceeding twenty - five rupees a
