STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PYAREKHAN ALLARAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the State for the enhancement of sentence passed on the opponent under Sections 3 and 4 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, for having in possession and control of a motor vehicle without payment of the tax, an offence punishable under Section 16 of the said Act.

(2.) A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Counsel for the opponent- accused that this revision application is filed directly in the High Court without it being filed in the Sessions Court, and reliance is placed on Rule 14 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, contained in Chap. XXVI of the said Rules. The said Rule 14 reads as under: In the absence of special circumstances, the High Court will not entertain an application for revision where an application for revision might have, but has not, been made to a lower revisional Court. The High Court cannot frame rules as regards the powers of the High Court. The powers of the High Court are to be found in the Letters Patent and in Constitution. That is not a subject on which Rules can be framed by the High Court. Rules are also not framed in such language. What purports to be a rule is a statement of the policy of the High Court. What purports to be Rule 14 cannot be said to be a rule. The objection is, therefore, rejected.

(3.) THE next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the opponent is that the sentence of fine prescribed under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, is not passed and therefore the minimum prescribed under that section does not apply. The contention is that the sentence of fine prescribed under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, has not been passed because in addition to that sentence the sentence in default is passed under Section 33 of the Criminal P. C. The sentence of fine would fall under Section 16 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, while the sentence in default of fine would fall under Section 33 of the Criminal P. C. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel is rejected.