DIVAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was the 2nd accused in S. T. No. 359 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mobile, Cochin, was found guilty under R. 41 and under C. R. 119 read with S. 177 of the Motor vehicles Act, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to simple imprisonment for one week. He was also disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of one month from 24-1-1991 till 23-2-1991.

(2.) THIS was a case where the conviction and sentence followed on the voluntary plea made by the petitioner that he was guilty of the charge. But, the counsel submitted that the plea should not have been accepted by the court since the ingredients of the offences had not been made out in the charge. I am unable to accept this submission.

(3.) THE substantial question which was canvassed was in regard to the correctness of the order regarding suspension of the driving licence. S. 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers power upon the licensing authority to disqualify a person holding a driving licence or to revoke his licence subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. THE power of the court to disqualify is provided for in S. 20. S. 21 deals with suspension of driving licence in certain cases. S. 22 deals with suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction. S. 23 deals with the effect of disqualification order. S. 20 says: "20. Power of court to disqualify (1) 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 bylaw, 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: Provided that in respect of an of fence punishable under S. 183 no such order shall be made for the first or second offence. XXX XXX XXX" To apply S. 20 the accused should be convicted either for an offence under the Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used. S. 177 which is one of the penal sections says:-"177. General provision for punishment of offences. Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification, made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offences with fine which may extend' to three hundred rupees". It was submitted by counsel that contravention of the rules would not come within the scope of S. 20 of the Act. This argument may not hold good because rules framed under the Act are also part of the Act itself. Breach of the rule, therefore, would ordinarily come within the purview of S. 20. A general observation to the contrary made by this court in Crl. R. P. No. 33 of 1991 does not appear to be correct. But, S. 20 and related provisions cast a duty on the court to take into account the seriousness of the offence committed before ordering suspension of the driving licence. It should not be ordered in a capricious or arbitrary manner. THE legislative intention that seriousness of the offence must weigh with the court is clear from the provisions. Suspension should not be resorted to invariably as a matter of course upon conviction of an offence under the Motor Vehicles act. Certain guidelines have been given in sub-sections 2 to 5 of S. 20 and ss. 21 and 22 of the Act. In a case like this where the accused had committed breach of rule 41 and C. R. 119 read with, S. 177 of the Act, in my view, action under S. 20 was unjustified.