IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 OP(Crl.).No. 521 of 2011(Q) --------------------------- (ST.138/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MOBILE COURT, ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONER ------------------- MARTIN JERALD, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.R.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT 41/2064, ANTHIKAD HOUSE, KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH, ERNAKULAM-682011. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(Crl).No. 521 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who has been sentenced to payment of fine of `.500/- for use of a fancy plastic number plate on his car challenges application of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules”) to vehicles registered prior to 31.05.2005 to which day according to the petitioner, that Rule was made applicable in the State of Kerala. 2. Petitioner's vehicle bore a fancy plastic number plate which was detected by the Traffic Police on 05-01-2011 and a case was registered against petitioner for alleged violation of Rule 50 of the Rules. Petitioner was tried in S.T.No.138 of 2011 of the court of learned learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Ernakulam. He pleaded guilty and remitted fine of `.500/-. According to the petitioner the final report against him as illegal there could be no retrospectivity for a penal provision. Learned counsel contends that a reading Secs.39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act”) and Rule 50 of the Rules, makes it clear that the said Rule is applicable only to vehicles registered on and after commencement of the Rule on O.P(Crl).No.521 of 2011 -: 2 :- 31.05.2005 so far as the State of Kerala is concerned. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Kartar SinghVs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569) and argued that a penal provision cannot be vague and based on such vague provision, a conviction could not be sustained. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Rule 50 is clear that from the date of and after commencement of that Rule, the number place of the vehicle should be in conformity with the said Rule. 3. Rule 50 of the Rules states that on and after commencement of that Rule, registration mark referred to in sub section (6) of Sec.41 shall be displayed both at the front and at the rear of all motor vehicles clearly and legibly in the form of security license plate with the following specifications, namely:- (i) the plate shall be a solid unit made of 1.0mm aluminium conforming to DIN 1745/DIN 1783 or ISO 7591. Certain other directions are also made with which I am not now concerned. It is not disputed before me that the vehicle of petitioner displayed its registration number on fancy plastic and not on aluminium plate when the detection was made on 05.01.2011. Now the question is whether the above said Rule is applicable to a vehicle registered prior to 31.05.2005 when the Rule was introduced in the State of O.P(Crl).No.521 of 2011 -: 3 :- Kerala. 4. Sec.39 of the Act states about the necessity for registration of vehicles and says that the vehicle shall carry a registration mark displayed “in the manner prescribed”. Sec.192 of the Act states about use of vehicle without registration and penalises any person driving a motor vehicle or causing or allowing it to be used in contravention of the provisions of Sec.39. Thus, as per Sec.39 of the Act registration mark has to be displayed in the prescribed manner. Rule 50 of the Rules prescribes the manner of display6 of registration mark. That Rule does not give any indication that it is applicable only to vehicles registered after the commencement of the said Rule (i.e., 31.05.2005). On the other hand, the words “on and after commencement of this Rule the registration mark referred to sub section (6) of Sec.41 shall be displayed” in the manner specified thereunder, i.e., the plate shall be a solid unit made of 1.0mm aluminium as referred to in sub Sec.(i) gives eloquent indication that display of registration mark on and after commencement of the Rule (i.e., 31.05.2005) must be in the manner prescribed therein. This view of mine gets support from the further statement in sub section (i) of Rule 50 that “the plate shall be O.P(Crl).No.521 of 2011 -: 4 :- suitable for hot stamping and reflective sheet has to be guaranteed for imperishable nature for minimum five years” which means that the minimum period prescribed therein is 5 years. Rule 50 also says that the registration mark shall be displayed “legibly in the form of security license plate”. It is hard to think that the said requirement of the registration mark being legible in the form of security license is not required for vehicles registered prior to the Rule came into force. I am also not persuaded to think that the Rule framed from the security point of view concerned only vehicles registered after the Rule came into force. That is why the expression “on or after commencement of this Rule” is used in Rule 50. 5. No doubt, a penal statute has to be interpreted strictly as it invites penal consequences. Even the rule of strict interpretation in favour of a person accused is not of rigid or universal application. If it leads to absurd results, then an interpretation which further the object of the statute should be resorted to (See Thomas Vargheese Vs. P. Jerome (1992 (1) KLJ 831)). In my view if the interpretation made by the learned counsel for petitioner is accepted, it would mean that the manner prescribed for display of registration mark on security point of O.P(Crl).No.521 of 2011 -: 5 :- view is not required for vehicles registered prior to 31.05.2005 and is required only for vehicles registered thereafter. I am unable to give my assent to that interpretation. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-