K VASANTHAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Same questions of law arise in these two revision petitions. So they are disposed of by this common order. Accused in S. T. 2875/85 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, III, Kozhikode is the petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 313/86. He was the conductor of stage carriage bearing reg. No. KRZ 594. A petty case was filed against him for offences under R.70 and 243 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules read with S.112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The substance of the allegation was that while the said bus was operating service on 20-7-85 with the petitioner as conductor, it reached Corporation bus stand at 11-30 AM. instead of 11-40 AM. which is the schedule time and that the petitioner was not having in his possession his conductor licence. Summons to the accused was issued on 4-10-85 directing him either to appear before court on 15-1-86 or to pay a sum of Rs. 75/- either in cash or by money order in case he pleads guilty. The petitioner opted to contest the case by engaging a counsel to defend him. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each on the said two counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) Crl. R.P. 314/86 is at the instance of accused in S. T. Case No. 4036/85 on the file of the same court. He was the conductor of the stage carriage bearing reg. No. K R Z 6941. A petty case was charged against him for offences under R.181 and 253 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules read with S.112 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The allegations made against him were that the vehicle did not carry a first aid box and a complaint book. Summons was issued to the petitioner directing him to appear before court on 20-1-86 or to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in case he pleads guilty. Since the petitioner considered the charge to be false, he opted to contest the case and engaged a counsel. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences and imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 75/- each on the two counts and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. The conviction and sentence are under challenge.

(3.) The questions raised in these revision petitions are whether the learned Magistrate was justified in placing reliance on the check reports prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police and whether the learned Magistrate was correct in imposing a sentence of fine more than the amount mentioned in the summons.