BHAVESH NANDLAL KABRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to declare the action of respondent authority in detaining the vehicle for breach of Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "the Act") and compelling the petitioner to compound the offence under Section 200 of the Act to pay the compounding fine.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is permitted to ply a vehicle as a contract carriage, whereas in the intervening night on 19/20.04.2019, the vehicle was intercepted and was found with passengers which did not belong to one group and the driver had not produced any passengers list and hence, prima- facie found that vehicle was being used as Stage Carriage. Such use being in contravention to Section 66 of the Act which provides for permits and therefore, was liable for action under Section 192-A of the Act. It is submitted that on the same day, after having found the petitioner liable for action under Section 192-A of the Act, had proceeded to compound the offence under Section 200 of the Act. While compounding, the petitioner was made to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Section 200 of the Act which provides for compounding of certain offences does not include Section 192-A of the Act and therefore, action of compounding the offence under 192-A of the Act contemplated against the petitioner ought not to have been compounded.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily paid the amount and after voluntary payment only, the departmental action was initiated against the petitioner and the fine of Rs.2000/- was accepted. It it submitted that it is only after a period of two months on such compounding, that the petitioner has filed the present petition and therefore, filing of the petition is an afterthought. It is submitted that by the late challenge to the action, the petitioner was escaped from both criminal liability as well as liability under the departmental proceedings.