KAUSHIK DE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this WP under Article 226 dated March 29, 2012 are seeking the following principal reliefs:

(2.) In the compound slip-cum-seizure list it was written that the fifth respondent issued it in exercise of power conferred on him by sub-section (1) of section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and that the second petitioner had committed offence under section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because in contravention of the provisions of Rule 138(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 he was driving the seized vehicle without wearing the seat belt provided in the vehicle.

(3.) The fifth respondent offered to compound the offence in exchange for Rs. 100 fine payable within fifteen days. He mentioned that the second petitioner's failure to compound the offence would lead to institution of a prosecution before the appropriate Court of law. The fifth respondent at once impounded the second petitioner's driving licence in exercise of power under section 206(2) of the Act and issued a temporary acknowledgement under section 206(3). It was mentioned that if the second petitioner wanted to contest the prosecution, then he should appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.