STATE OF ORISSA Vs. HARIDWAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 19 -6 -1984 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, in U.I. Case Mo. 2124 of 1984, refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') and under Section 9 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.M.V.T. Act') said to have been committed by the opposite -party Haridwar Sharma.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the revision petition may be briefly stated as follows : On 18 -6 -1984 at 8 p.m. the Traffic Inspector, during the course of his checking of the public carrier vehicle No. OSO 9112, found that the vehicle was running without the route permit, was carrying excess weight than the permitted R.L.W. and the driver did not maintain the trip -sheet. Further it was found that the vehicle was running without a side indicator, numbers in the number plates were not written according to the required size and specification, the hand brake was not in order and the tax token was not affixed to the vehicle. Hence the Traffic Inspector had filed the prosecution report before the court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh at Uditnagar, Rourkela, against the driver Ran Singh and the owner Haridwar Sharma (the present opposite party) under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act which was registered as U.I. Case No. 2124 of 1984. By his order dated 19 61984, the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance against the driver R. Singh. On the driver R. Singh pleading guilty, he was convicted under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act and was sentenced there under to pay a fine of Rs. 10/ - on each of the counts. Being aggrieved by the order of the S.D.J.M. refusing to take cognizance against the owner of the vehicle (the present opposite party), this revision is filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Das, cited several decisions in support of his contention that the learned S.D.J.M. has acted illegally in refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act against the owner of the vehicle as well.