VINCENT SHARES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are prosecuted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Dist, for offences alleged to have been committed by them under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Rules made thereunder. In response to the notices issued by the Court, the petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate on 30-10-1974 and pleaded not guilty. They were also represented by an Advocate. It appears that they made an application under Sec.441 of the CrlPC for their being released on bail. The said application was allowed and the surety offered by the petitioner was accepted. It is at this stage that the Counsel for the petitioners contended before the learned Magistrate that the presence of the petitioners cannot be insisted upon on every date of hearing having regard to the fact that the procedure prescribed by (3) 130(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is applicable to these cases, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners not being those falling under Part A of the 5th Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The learned Magistrate made a common order on the 11th of February, 1975 holding that the objection raised by the petitioners does not merit any consideration at this stage having regard to the fact that all the petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. The learned Magistrate agreed With the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are those specified in Part B of the Fifth Schedule and not Part A of the said Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. He also agreed with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 130(1) of the said Act are applicable and that therefore the proper course to be followed at the outset by the Court taking cognizance of the offence was to direct summons being served on the petitioners stating that they may appear by Pleader and not in person or may by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge plead guilty to the charge by registered letter and remit to the Court such sum not exceeding the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence as the Court may specify.

(2.) Shri Mohandas N.Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is right in maintaining that the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners survives notwithstanding the fact that they appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. He is right in maintaining that the petitioners are required to appear on every date of hearing though sub-sec(1) of S.130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes it clear that the petitioners could appear by Pleader and not in person having regard to the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are not those falling in Part A of the 5th Schedule to the Act. It is clear from sub-sec(1) of S.130 that in such cases, the accused may appear by Pleader and not in person. As already stated, the petitioners are duly represented by a Counsel before the learned Magistrate. Hence, on all further dates of hearing, the petitioners could appear by their Advocate and not in person. It is, however, necessary to make it clear that if the presence of the petitioners is necessary for the trial at any particular stage of the hearing, it is open to the learned Magistrate to call upon them to appear on that particular date of hearing. It is clear that the petitioners cannot, when they are represented by an Advocate, be required to appear before the learned Magistrate on every date of hearing. That being the correct position, it is enough to make it clear that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners having executed surety bonds before the learned Magistrate they would not be required to appear in person before the learned Magistrate as long as they continue to be represented by their Advocate on every subsequent date of hearing of these cases. If at any particular stage of the hearing of these cases, the learned Magistrate requires the presence of the petitioners, he is entitled to call upon the petitioners to appear before him at those particular stages. Making this position clear, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

(3.) Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate forthwith to enable him to proceed further in these cases.