GENERAL MANAGER, O.R.T. CO. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE General Manager O.R.T. Co., was prosecuted under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) and under Sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (Act III of 1931) hereinafter referred to as the Act and Madras Act respectively. The charge against the Petitioner is that he failed to carry in a conspicuous place upon the vehicle the license granted in respect of motor vehicle and that he failed to pay the tax due in respect of the vehicle. Summons were issued to the Petitioner wherein the aforesaid sections were quoted and the Petitioner was required to appear 'in person' before the Court of Shri G.C. Ray, Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. On 20th July, 1965, the date fixed, the Petitioner appeared through Shri Y.K. Murty, Advocate. A petition was filed by the Advocate to allow the accused to be represented by him. The learned Magistrate rejected this prayer by passing the following order:

(2.) THE second part of the recommendation is wholly without jurisdiction. There was no application before the learned Magistrate for quashing the proceeding and the question of making a recommendation for quashing the proceeding did not arise. It was open to the Petitioner to canvass this question before the Magistrate and to move in revision in this Court for quashing the proceeding if it was legally tenable. The Reference, so far as this part of the case is concerned, is discharged.

(3.) COMING to the question of the offence under Sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Act, it is to be made clear that there is no specific provision in that Act as to representation of an accused through a pleader analogous to the provision made in Section 130 of the Act. In the absence of a specific provision in that Act and in the absence of provisions that Section 130 of the Act is applicable to offences under the Madras Act, Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure would have full application. The learned Magistrate should have applied his mind to the facts of the case and considered whether the Petitioner should have been allowed to be represented through a pleader.