SHANKAR MUNAJI KUTRE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the order in appeal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, who after partly allowing the appeal filed by the accused set aside the order of conviction and sentence under section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act passed by the trial Court but confirmed the order of conviction under Clause 5 of the Motor Car (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1959.

(2.) The complainant in this case is the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ratnagiri and the accused a resident of Belgauln in the State of Mysore who represented himself to be a resident of village Kudal in Ratnagiri district for the purpose of getting an order for a fiat motor car from M/s. Streamline Motors, Sawantwadi. The case of the complainant is that the accused has in this way manoeuvred to get a car and took delivery of it on Nov. 26, 1971. When he took the car for registration at Sawantwadi, his car was not registered because the Motor Vehicles Inspector after verifying the correctness of the particulars given by him in the application for registration found them to be incorrect. The accused therefore was prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 24 and 24A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act as well as under section 22 read with section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Clause 5 of the Motor Car (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1959.

(3.) The accused denied having committed the offences and said that he did come from Belgaum and that his shop was also there but it was run by his sons. He has also started business of transport as well as of carrying manures to the district of Ratnagiri and that although his wife and children live at Belgaum, he resides at Kudal for the purpose of business. The learned Magistrate after scrutinising evidence led by the prosecution found that the accused made a false statement of particulars in his application for booking a Fiat car in contravention of Clause 5 of the Motor Car (Distributoin and Sale) Control Order. He was also found guilty of other offences and therefore he was convicted. This order of conviction was challenged by the accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri who heard the appeal only agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the accused was not a resident of the area of which M/s. Streamline Motors, Sawantwadi were the agents but disagreed with the other findings. Accordingly, therefore, he only confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused under Clause 5 of the Motor Car (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1959. This order, therefore, is now challenged here. The point that arises here for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is according to law. Clause 5(1) of the Motor Car (Distribution and Sale) Control Order is as follows :