JAGADANANDA SAHANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of a prosecution report in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sambalpur, for having committed the offences under Section 112, 114, 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1969 as well as under Section 21 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. The Petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offences and the offences being read over and explained to him, the Petitioner pleaded guilty and did not claim to be tried. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded and the learned Magistrate found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - for his conviction under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and fine of Rs. 200/ - for his conviction under each of the other sections and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively. The Petitioner paid the fine whereafter the case was closed, but having paid the fine, preferred an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the Petitioner's conviction under Section 114, but upheld the conviction of the Petitioner under all other sections. Hence the present, revision.

(2.) THE conviction of the Petitioner under Section 112 is for contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act inasmuch as the Petitioner had no driving licence. His conviction under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act is for the fact that the vehicle was being driven without a valid permit. The conviction under Section 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act is for non -payment of passengers tax and his conviction under Section 21 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is on account of non -affixing the tax taken on the vehicle. The Petitioner in his statement admitted all his guilt. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Gobardhan Mohapatra and Anr. v. State : 49 (1980) C.L.T. 98, that the trying magistrate has not observed the principles which are necessary while trying a case and has thus transgressed the limits and acted in an arbitrary manner. Having carefully examined the aforesaid decision on which reliance has been placed and the records of the present case, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No doubt, the learned Judge in the aforesaid case has observed the norms to be followed by a magistrate trying cases in mobile Courts, but there is no assertion anywhere from which it can be inferred that the Magistrate has transgressed these norms. On the other hand, the records of the case indicate that the Magistrate did observe the aforesaid norms and accordingly the said contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be sustained.

(3.) NO other contention having been raised, this Criminal Revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.