BAPU ATMARAM SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a driver of a motor lorry, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash proceedings launched against him under Rule 138 of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) Motor Lorry No. MHT 2725 is registered with the R.T.O., Bombay in the name of M/s. Mangatram and Brothers. The petitioner is the driver of that motor vehicle. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-2-1981 at about 10.10 a.m. at "R.A.K." Road (Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road), committed an offence under Rule 138 of the Motor Vehicles Rule. Then in the charge-sheet what is stated is a word "Mangatram". There is no section of the Motor Vehicles Act mentioned in the charge-sheet. The column in the charge-sheet is blank. It is on this truncated charge-sheet that the petitioner is sought to be punished for the alleged offence under the said Rule 138 read with the said section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Shri Gursahani, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has firstly contended that the charge-sheet is vague and it does not disclose under which part of Rule 138 the offence has been committed. He has secondly contended that the driver of a motor vehicle is not a person who could be said to have committed an offence under the said Rule 138 on a plain reading of Rule 138.