SADANANDA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is by the accused for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 281-1985 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Bangalore City in C. C, No. 19559/81.

(2.) The accused was prosecuted upon a petty case charge-sheet placed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Frazer Town Traffic Sub-Zone for offences under Rules 54 and 181(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (the 'Rules') and Sections 86(2) and 106 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the 'Act'), all of them are punishable under Section 112 of the Act. The accused was convicted upon the alleged plea of guilty for offences under Rule 54 of the Rules and Sections 3(1), 86(2) and 106(3) read with Section 112 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in all as per the order dated 28-1-1983. It is the correctness and legality of this order that is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Smt. Pramila, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the procedure followed and the conviction recorded in this case by the Learned Magistrate, although the accused was dealt on a petty case charge-sheet, would reduce the criminal trial into an empty formality and conviction of a citizen for an alleged offence a mockary. She further contended that the Magistrate should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 130 of the Act which is mandatory since all the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with fine only, that he having dealt with the case under summary trial procedure as laid down under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the 'Cede') should have adopted the procedure applicable for the trial of summons cases as stipulated in Section 262 after securing the presence of the petitioner by due service of the summons, that the records of the case show that the Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of the Coda either to secure the presence of the petitioner or in putting the accusation of the alleged offences to the petitioner and recording his plea and thus the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the conviction are liable to be set aside.