Case: Pooran Singh And Another Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. Station House Officer, Gharsiwa filed an information in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, against the two appellants complaining that they had on March 10, 1962 allowed three passengers to occupy the front seat in a public carrier and had loaded goods in excess of the sanctioned weight, and had thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 124 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939. The Magistrate issued process against the appellants for their appearance in Court by pleader, but did not make any endorsement thereon in terms of S. 130 (1) (b) of the Act. The appellants submitted that the summonses served upon them were not according to law and the Magistrate by failing to make an endorsement on the summonses as required by cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 130 of the Act had deprived them of the right conferred by the Act to intimate without appearing in Court their plea of guilty and remitting an amount not exceeding Rs. 25 as may be specified. The Magistrate rejected this plea and directed that the case against the appellants be "proceeded further according to law".      2. The Sessions Judge, Raipur in a petition moved by the appellants made a reference to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate be set aside, for in his view the Trial Magistrate having failed to comply with the mandatory terms of S. 130 (1) (b) the proceeding against the appellants was unlawful. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh declined to accept the reference. Against that order, with certificate granted by the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
5. In our judgment of the High Court was right in the view it has taken. The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence is bound to issue summons of the nature prescribed by sub-s. (1) of S. 130. But there is nothing in that sub-section which indicates that he must endorse the summons in terms of both the cls. (a) and (b) : to hold that he is so commanded would be to convert the conjunction "or" into "and". There is nothing in the words used by the Legislature which justifies such a conversion, and there are strong reasons which render such an interpretation wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Act6. The procedure in sub-s. (1) of S. 130 applies to cases in which the offence charged is not one of the offences specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule, but applies to the other offences under the Act. The maximum penalty which is liable to be imposed in respect of these offences defined by the Act is in no case Rs. 25 or less. It could not have been the intention of the Legislature that the offender, even if the case was serious enough to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty which is permissible under the Section to which the provision is applicable, to avoid imposition of a higher penalty than Rs. 25 by merely pleading guilty. Section 130, it appears, was enacted with a view to protect from harassment a person guilty of a minor infraction of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder by dispensing with his presence before the Magistrate and in appropriate cases giving him an option to plead guilty to the charge and to remit the amount which can in no case exceed Rs. 25. If the view which prevailed with the Sessions Judge were true, a person guilty of a serious offence meriting the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence may by pleading guilty under subs.(1)(b) escape by paying an amount which cannot exceed Rs. 25. Again the Magistrate is authorised under S. 17 of the Act in convicting an offender of an offence under the Act, or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used, in addition to imposing any other punishment to pass an order declaring the offender unfit for holding a driving licence generally, or for holding a driving licence for a particular class or description of vehicle. Such an order may be passed if it appears to the Court, having regard to the gravity of the offence, inaptitude shown by the offender of for other reasons, that he is unfit to obtain or hold a driving licence. But if the offender avails himself of the option given to him by the Magistrate of pleading guilty, no further proceeding in respect of the offence can in view of sub-s. (3) of S. 130 be taken against him, and he will not be liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, though he may otherwise eminently deserve to be disqualified for holding a licence7. It is true that to an offence punishable with imprisonment in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used S. 130 (1) does not apply : see Sch. Five, Part A, Item 9. But there are offences under the Motor Vehicles Act which do not fall within that description and also do not fall under other items, which are punishable with imprisonment, e.g., S. 113 (2). There are also certain offences which, if repeated but not otherwise, are liable to be punished with imprisonment, e.g., certain offences under S. 118A and under S. 123 of the Act. It would be difficult to hold that the Legislature could have intended that irrespective of the seriousness or gravity of the offence committed, offender would be entitled to compound the offence by paying the amount specified in the summons, which the Magistrate would be bound to accept, if the contention raised by the appellants is correct8. Having regard to the phraseology used by the Legislature which prima facie gives a discretion to the Magistrate exercisable at the time of issuing the summons, and having regard also to the scheme of the Act, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the Magistrate is not obliged in offence not specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to make an endorsement in terms of Cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 130 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the view to the contrary expressed by the High Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Mangal Singh, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 684 (All), and the High Court of Assam in State of Assam v. Suleman Khan, 1961 (2) Cri LJ 869 (Assam), on which the Sessions Judge relied is not correct.