IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1635 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------- CR.A.195/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.1817/1999 of JFCM-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: K.VENU S/O. KARAPPAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, NADUVATH, WANDOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, MELATTUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.6998/2003 IN CRRP 1635/2003 DISMISSED 28.5.2010 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1635 of 2003 -------------------------- ORDER Whether disqualification of driving licence provided under Section 20 of Motor Vehicles Act is attracted or not for a conviction for the offence under Section 192 of Section 192-A of Motor Vehicles Act is the question to be settled in this revision. 2. Petitioner, the driver of bus KL-10/D 2655, on 25.9.1999 at about 3.10 p.m., alleged to have committed an offence under Section 66 read with Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perinthalmanna. The allegation is that petitioner did not take the bus inside Melattur Bus Stand and did not allow the students to get into that bus and thereby committed the offence. Petitioner pleaded guilty when the substance of the offence was read CRRP 1635/03 2 over and explained to him on 17.11.1999. Learned Magistrate, thereafter, found him guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Finding that petitioner, by his act, prevented the students from using the public conveyance, which resulted in difficulty to the students as well as unrest to the public, found that the licence is to be suspended. Hence, as provided under Section 20 of the Act, the driving licence was suspended for a period of two months. Petitioner filed Crl.A.No.195/1999 before Sessions Court, Manjeri challenging the conviction and sentence. It was contended that an offence under Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Act is not attracted on the allegations and therefore, in spite of pleading guilty, learned Magistrate should not have convicted him. Additionally, it was contended that sentence of suspending the driving CRRP 1635/03 3 licence is illegal. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. It is challenged in this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that as a driver of the stage carriage bus, petitioner did not take the bus to Melattur bus stand and on that allegation, neither Section 66 nor Section 192 of the Act is attracted and therefore, the conviction and sentence is illegal. Learned counsel would then argue that even if the conviction is to be sustained, suspension of the driving licence is unwarranted. It is argued that Section 20 of Motor Vehicles Act provides for suspension of the driving licence not for an offence under Sections 192 of the Act and as held by this Court in Divakaran v. State of Kerala (1991 (1) KLT 772), driving licence cannot be suspended in a capricious or arbitrary CRRP 1635/03 4 manner and has to be resorted only on conviction for serious offences and therefore, suspension of the driving licence is to be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner pleaded guilty and learned Magistrate, on the materials, rightly convicted him and the sentence is only reasonable. It was pointed out that though Section 183 of the Act has been excluded from the offences for which the driving licence could be suspended under Section 20 of the Act for the first two convictions, an offence under Section 192 of the Act was not so excluded and therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in suspending the driving licence. 6. The fact that petitioner was the driver of the stage carriage bus on 25.9.1999 at about 3.10 p.m. and the bus, which should have been gone inside Melattur Bus Stand, did not enter the bus stand is not disputed. The question is whether it attracts the offence for which he was convicted. CRRP 1635/03 5 7. Section 66 of the Act provides for necessity for permits. Under sub-section (1) of Section 66, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place, whether or not, such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. There is no case for the prosecution that there was no permit for the bus. Hence, Section 66 of the Act has no application on the facts of this case. 8. Section 192(1) of the Act reads: “Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees, for a second or subsequent offence CRRP 1635/03 6 with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both.” 9. Originally, before the amendment of Motor Vehicles Act by Act 54 of 1994, sub-section (1) of Section 192 provided that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used or to the maximum number of passengers and maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and for any second or subsequent offence with imprisonment, which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both. Section 192 and 192-A CRRP 1635/03 7 substitutes old Section 192 of the Act. Section 192-A was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 for using the vehicle without permit. 10. The amended Section 192-A(1) reads: “Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both.” 11. Section 39 of the Act provides necessity for registration. Under the Section, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to CRRP 1635/03 8 be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. 12. Therefore, to attract an offence under Section 192(1) of the Act, petitioner should have driven the bus in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. There is no allegation that petitioner was driving the bus without the vehicle being registered in accordance with chapter IV or that the vehicle did not carry a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Therefore, an offence under Section 192(1) of the Act will not lie. But, it cannot be disputed that petitioner was driving the bus on that particular day, in contravention of the conditions of the permit relating to the route on which the bus was being plied. Conditions of permit relating to the route CRRP 1635/03 9 mandates that petitioner shall drive the bus into the bus stand and take passengers from thereon. He had not done so. Therefore, there is violation of the conditions of permit relating to the route, which is punishable under Section 192-A of the Act. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 192, without specifying that it is under Section 192-A of the Act. The conviction could only be under Section 192-A of the Act. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction, except making it clear that the conviction is under Section 192-A of the Act. 13. Then the question is regarding the sentence. For the first offence as provided under Section 192-A of the Act, petitioner could be sentenced only to a fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/-, though for a subsequent offence, he could be sentenced for imprisonment, which may extend to one year with a minimum sentence of imprisonment for three months or fine which may CRRP 1635/03 10 extend to Rs.10,000/- with a minimum fine of Rs.5,000/- or with both. The proviso enables the Magistrate to impose a lesser punishment for reasons to be recorded. Learned Magistrate has imposed only a fine of Rs.2,000/-, which is perfectly legal. 14. Then the question is whether suspension of the driving licence under Section 20 of the Act is legal. Section 20 of the Act reads: “Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used, the Court by which such person is convicted may, subject to the provisions of this Act, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law, declare the persons so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as the Court may specify, from holding any driving licence to drive all classes or description of vehicles, or any particular class or description of such vehicles, as are specified in such licence.” CRRP 1635/03 11 15. Though learned counsel argued that an offence under Section 192 or 192-A of the Act does not warrant suspension of the driving licence under Section 20 of the Act, as it is meant for more serious offence, on a reading of the Section, I cannot agree with the submission. Proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 20 of the Act specifically clarifies that in respect of an offence punishable under Section 183, no such order shall be made for the first or second offence. The sentence provided for an offence under Section 183 of the Act is fine, which may extend to Rs.4,000/- and if previously convicted, a fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/-. It does not provide a sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, Section 192 and 192-A of the Act are definitely more serious offences. Moreover, when the legislatures in their wisdom excluded operation of a conviction for the offence under Section 183, for suspending the driving licence for the first two offences, Section 192 or CRRP 1635/03 12 192-A was not so excluded. It cannot be lightly ignored. Argument of the learned counsel was based on the decision of this Court in Divakaran's case (supra). That was a case where the driving licence was suspended for the conviction of an accused for the offences under Rule 41 and CR 119 read with Section 177 of the Act. Section 177 of the Act is a general provision for punishment of offences, if no penalty is provided elsewhere under the Act and the sentence provided is fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for the first offence and a fine of Rs.3,00/- for the subsequent offences. The said offence cannot be compared to an offence under Section 192 to 192A of the Act. Learned single Judge in Divakaran's case (supra) held that argument that contravention of the Rules would not come within the scope of Section 20 of the Act does not hold good because the Rules framed under the Act are also part of the Act and breach of the Rule would ordinarily come within the purview of Section CRRP 1635/03 13 20 of the Act. But, it was found that Section 20 of the Act casts a duty on the court to take into account the seriousness of the offence committed before ordering suspension of driving licence and it should not be ordered in a capricious or arbitrary manner and the intention of the legislatures is to apply it in respect of serious offences. I cannot agree with the submission that in view of the decision, Section 192 or 192A of the Act is beyond the scope of Section 20 of the Act. When an accused is convicted under Section 192 or 192-A of the Act, Magistrate is definitely competent to suspend his driving licence as provided under Section 20 of the Act, if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it. 16. Though learned counsel argued that suspension of the driving licence was capricious and arbitrary, I find that learned Magistrate has given cogent and sufficient reasons to suspend the sentence. Learned Magistrate has taken into CRRP 1635/03 14 consideration the sad plight of the students and the consequent unrest in the society and held that in the circumstances, suspension of the driving licence is warranted. I find no reason to differ. But, considering the fact that the incident was in 1999, the period, during which, the licence shall stand suspended, is reduced to one month. Revision is disposed. 28th May, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv CRRP 1635/03 15 M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1635 of 2003 -------------------------- ORDER 28th May, 2010