STATE Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been f ltd by the State under the provisions of Section 439 Cri.P.C. against the opposite parties Mangal Singh and Rati Lal. The opposite parties were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 42/123 and 38 read with Section 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The opposite parties were convicted under Section 42/123 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- Or in default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 38 read with Section 42/123 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment each. The opposite parties filed an appeal before the learned Session Judge, Meerut against the order convicting and sentencing them. This appeal was heard by Sri H.N. Kapoor, Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, who by his judgment dated 30th October, 1959 allowed it in part and maintaining the conviction of the opposite parties under Section 42 and 38 of the Act reduced the fine to Rs. 25/- under each count. The ground on which the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentences was that the same in his opinion were illegal. In effect he held that under the provisions of Section 130 of the Act the Magistrate was required to issue a summons calling upon the opposite parties to appear by pleader and not in person, or that they may by a specified date mentioned in the summons prior to the date of hearing of the charge plead guilty to the charge by registered letter and remit to the court such sum not exceeding twenty five rupees as the court may specify and that inasmuch as the summons were not in conformity with the provisions of Section 130 of the Act (he proceedings were not legal. He further held that the effect of the omission of the necessary particulars from the summons was that the opposite parties be given the benefit of Section 130 of the Act and a fine of Rs. 25/- under each count should be imposed upon each of them.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Bhatt, Deputy Government Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. H.N. Chatterjee for the opposite parties. Mr. Bhatt has submitted firstly that the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge was not competent and secondly that the learned Magistrate has taken a. wrong view of Section 130 of the Act. We shall consider these submissions separately.

(3.) So far as the first submission is concerned, we have already mentioned above that the opposite parties were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each under each count with the result that a total fine of Rs. 400/- was imposed on each one of them. It was contended that the Appeal did not lie because of the provisions of Section 414 Cri.P.C. That section reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything herein before contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily in which a Magistrate empowered to act under Section 260 passes a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only. We have already stated above that the total fine imposed was Rs. 100/- and as such the case does not fall within the mischief of Section 414 Cr.P.C. We are clearly 6f the opinion that the appeal preferred by the opposite parties before the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut was competent and in that view of the matter overrule the first submission of the learned Deputy Government Advocate.