SOME NATH CHAKRABARTY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is a Branch Manager of a trading agency which deals with several items including Nippo Batteries. In 1996, the informant, a police officer, lodged Kadamkuan PS Case No. 142 of 1996. alleging that contrary to orders of the Disrict Magistrate three trucks had been parked in certain residential areas of the town of Patna which were within no parking zone. The FIR alleged an offence under Section 431 of the IPC against the three truck drivers and persons whose names were disclosed by the three drivers as the owners of the goods which were being carried in those trucks. Charge sheet was submitted and cognizance taken in this case on 20.5.1996. In 1997, petitioner challenged the order of cognizance before this Court on the ground that he had no role to play because he is neither the owner of the vehicle nor its driver. He denied any interest in any of the trucks. That quashing application was dismissed with observation that petitioner may raise his objection at appropriate stage. Subsequently, at the stage of framing of charges petitioner prayed for discharge and the said prayer has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.8.2001.

(3.) ON going through the materials on record, the aforesaid submission on behalf of the petitioner appears to be worth acceptance. There is no allegation of any loss or damage to public or any property and hence, no offence under Section 431 of the IPC is attracted. As per judgment of the Apex Court, the petty offence under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be allowed to continue for such a long period and it was a fit case where the trial court should have discharged the petitioner.