IN RE MIKKINENI MARUTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question which is raised by Mrs. K. Amareswari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since no summons was issued to the accused under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act his conviction is vitiated.

(2.) In order to appreciate the implications of this contention, it is necessary to mention a few facts. The accused was charged by the Special Motor Vehicle Inspector, Vijayawada for the offences under Section 123 read with Section 42(1), Section 112 read with Rule 213(IV) and (V) and Section 112 read with Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged inter alia that on 30-12-1964 at 8-30 p.m. the accused was found driving motor vehicle No. APK 7002 which was overloaded by five passengers and was being driven without permit. No trip sheet also was maintained. The driver had no driving licence.

(3.) The accused in his statement under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code admitted the offences. The learned Magistrate found the accused therefore guilty of the offences and convicted him under Section 123 read with Section 42(1) and sentenced him to a term of one month's simple imprisonment. He also convicted him under Section 112 read with rule 213 (IV) and (V) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5 or to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 days and under Section 112 read with Section 3 to pay a fine of Rs. 15 or to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment.