RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner challanges his conviction by the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Traffic Mobile Court, Madras, for an offence under Rule 323 of the Motor Vehicles Rules read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 30/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, meted put to him for the said offence. The petitioner was convicted on his own admission and plea before the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, who presided over the Traffic Mobile Court, which was constituted under G. O. Ms. No. 901 Home dated 13-3-1966. That Government Order shows that the Government sanctioned the constitution of the Mobile Court for the trial exclusively of traffic offences in the Madras City.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, has framed rules for the working of the Traffic Mobile Court, Madras, with the approval of the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that Rule 8 of the said rules stipulates the various offences which shall be tried by the Traffic Mobile Court, that the offence of which the revision petitioner has been convicted is not one of those offences enumerated in that rule and that, therefore, the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Traffic Mobile Court, had no jurisdiction to enquire into the case and convict the revision petitioner. In short the learned Counsel contends that, by reason of Rule 8 referred to above, the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate had no power to try this ofference or convict the revision petitioner. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Under Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State Government is empowered to appoint, from time to time, a sufficient number of persons (called Presidency Magistrates) to be Magistrates for each of the Presidency Towns and to appoint one of such persons to be Chief Presidency Magistrate for each such town. Sub-section (2) further states that "the powers of a Presidency Magistrate under this Code shall be exercised- by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, or by a salaried Presidency Magistrate or by any other Presidency Magistrate empowered by the State Government to sit singly or by any Bench of Presidency Magistrates". The Magistrate in question is a Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate so appointed under Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State Government and empowered to sit singly and as such he is possessed of all the powers of a Presidency Magistrate under the statute itself. These powers cannot be controlled or circumscribed by the State Government by means of any Government Order, much less can the Chief Presidency Magistrate curtail or limit or circumscribe the statutory powers conferred on the Presidency Magistrate by means of any rule framed under Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may also be noted that Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Chief Presidency Magistrate to frame rules from time to time, with the previous sanction of the State Government, to regulate ;-

(3.) THE conviction is therefore correct. The sentence is not harsh, and calls for no interference. The Criminal Revision case is therefore dismissed.