FASALUDHEEN A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Crl.M.Cs. the respective petitioners are challenging the prosecution initiated against them by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, alleging the offences punishable under Ss. 113(3)(b) r/w. Sec. 194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The common allegation against the petitioners in all these Crl.M.Cs. are that they have carried the excess load in their goods carriages and thereby committed the offences. The petitioners are the drivers and registered owners of the respective vehicles.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C Nos.6645/22, 6716/22 and 6634/2022, Sri.K.Aboobacker Sidheeque, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.6985/2022, 6986/2022 and 6979/2022, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in Crl.M.C Nos.6716/22, 6645/2022, 6986/2022 and 6985/2022, Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents in Crl.M.C.No.6634/2022 and Sri.Sangeetharaj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in Crl.M.C.No.6979/2022.

(3.) Since the common legal contentions are raised in all these Crl.M.Cs., I am not dealing with the factual situation in each case separately. One of the crucial contentions raised by the petitioners is that the proceedings which are initiated based on complaint submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector are not legally sustainable mainly because of the reason that, the offences alleged against them are non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the final report submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector cannot be taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate. However, on examining the records, it can be seen that in all these cases, the prosecutions were initiated based on complaints submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and none of the said prosecutions were based on any police report as contemplated under Sec. 173(2) of Cr.PC. Therefore, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is not legally sustainable in law.