K. RAMANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was driving truck No. APS 979 on 3 -10 -1959 at about 5 p.m. from Golanthra to Berhampur. The S.D.M. Berhampur stopped the truck and found that the Petitioner had no driving license. The truck was also overloaded, both as regards the number of persons (6 persons excluding the driver) and as regards the weight of goods carried (about 7 tons of paddy). He also failed to produce the route permit when called upon to do so. The learned Magistrate asked the Petitioner whether he had any objection to being tried by him though be had himself detected the offences. The Petitioner stated that he had no objection and also pleaded guilty. He was then convicted under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge reduced the fine -for the offence under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act to Rs. 50/ -, for the offence under Section 123 to Rs. 200/ - and for the offence under Section 124 to Rs. 100/ -.

(2.) MR . Y.S.N. Murty for the Petitioner contended, relying on Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended recently, that even in cases where a summons is issued to the accused, if he pleads guilty and remits a sum of Rs. 25/ - the Magistrate die not authorised to impose a heavier sentence for offences of the type not mentioned in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. According to him, when the Petitioner pleaded guilty before the S.D.M. he waived his right to receive summons separately as required by Sub -section (1) of Section 13 of the Act and the sentence should not have been so severe . There seems some force in this contention. The object of Section 130 as recently amended appears to authorise the Magistrates to impose a sentence not exceeding Rs. 25/ - for minor offences of this type not specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act -provided the accused pleads guilty and promptly remits the fine. The principle of this section can be applied also to cases where the accused pleads guilty at the tiny of detection and does not object to his being tried by the same Magistrate who detected the offence.