PANDIT RAMACHANDRA HARIHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions relates to the power of the respondent motor vehicle authorities to levy and recover composition fee from the petitioners who are tourist and contract carriage operators, as also the procedure which ought to be followed by them while seizing the vehicles under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners contend that the authorities under the Act, have no jurisdiction to impose or recover any composition fee, for an offence punishable under Section 192-a of the act inserted by act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994; for the reason that Section 200 as amended by the act aforesaid does not permit composition of any such offence. Check reports and composition made after the 14th of november, 1994, have therefore been called in question inter alia on the ground that it is illegal and opposed to public policy to compound an offence not legally compoundable.

(2.) sections 192-a and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as they stand after 14-11-1994, may be reproduced at this stage:

(3.) a plain reading of the above two sections leaves no doubt what so ever that an offence under Section 192-a of the act is not one of the offences which can be legally compounded, in terms of Section 200 thereof. Any composition of such an offence would therefore be illegal and improper for it is trite that composition is permissible only if the law provides for it and not otherwise. Reference may in this connection be made in biswabahan das v gopen chandra hazarika and others, where their lordships observed thus: