(1.) THIS revision, petition by Nilmani Singh is directed against the order, dated 13 -12 -1967, by which Shri P. Nath, the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Dharrnanagar, convicted and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200/ -, or, in default, 10 days' simple imprisonment, under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act. Nilmani Singh before filing the instant revision petition had moved the Sessions Judge, Tripura, praying that the conviction and sentence should be quashed because the trial held by Shri P. Nath stood vitiated for reasons which I shall outline presently. How -ever, the Sessions Judge did not accept his contention as justified in law and so rejected his motion.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution against Nilmani Singh was that while driving the loaded truck No. TRL 957 on Assam -Agartala road, on 13 -12 -1967, he happened to carry five passengers and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 123 read with Section 112 of the Act The offence was detected by Shri Sailesh Kumar Bhattacherjee, the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, who was on checking duty on Assam -Agartala road when Nilmani Singh happened to drive the truck. Shri Bhattacherjee immediately prepared a report and presented the same along with the accused before Shri P. Nath, who, it is said, was then holding mobile Court on the road side. The accused, when examined under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter called the Code, it is the contention of the prosecution, pleaded guilty to the charge and so he was convicted and sentenced in the manner mentioned above on that plea of guilty. He paid Rs. 20/ - at the moment of his conviction and was then allowed time upto 31 -12 -1967 for paying the balance amount of the fine. The driving licence of Nilmani Singh was taken into possession pending payment of the balance amount.
(3.) THE main point urged in this Court by Shri A. M. Lodh for the petitioner was that the trial stands vitiated because of flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 130 of the Act. Sub -section (1) of that section, which alone requires to be interpreted in the present case, is in the following terms: