RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. As I shall presently show, it is a case where allowing the trial of the case amounts to abuse of the process of the court.

(2.) The petitioner Ramesh Chandra Mathur is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and was at the relevant time posted at Mandalgarh. Assembly elections in the year 1980 were to take place and, therefore, the District Election Officer, Bhilwara vide his letter dated April 26, 1980 directed that the Departmental Jeeps would be required for the purpose of election, hence they should be kept ready, if necessary be got prepared. On May 5, 1980 the petitioner Shri Mathur was proceeding in his departmental Jeep No. RSN. 3547 which was duly registered in the name of the Director of the Animal Husbandry Rajasthan, Jaipur. The vehicle was being driven by a driver and Mr. Mathur was seated in it. Head Constable Police stopped the vehicle, checked it and the complaint was filed against the petitioner and an objection was raised by him that he was protected by section 197 Cr. P.C. and without the prior sanction of the Government he could not be prosecuted. The learned Magistrate disallowed the application.

(3.) It may be stated here that the allegations against the petitioner are not that he was himself driving the vehicle without licence and as such he contravened the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder. I have been taken through sections 22, 86, 94, 123 and 125 Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 246 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951. I may straightaway say that no offence even prima facie under either of the sections or rule is made out. A look at section 23 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), will show either the driver or the owner of the vehicle, or both in case the vehicle is being driven without permit liable. The petitioner was neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and the owner was the Government of Rajasthan and the vehicle was registered in the name of the Director, Animal Husbandry. Under section 86 (2)of the Act either the Registering Authority or any person authorised in this behalf shall ask for person authorised in this behalf shall ask for production of the certificate of registration of vehicle. The Head Constable was not authorised to demand the production of the registration certificate. A look at section 233 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 will make it clear that Transport Officers not below the rank of Inspector of Motor Vehicles and police officers not below the rank of Sub Inspector are authorised to demand the certificate of registration of vehicle as well as the certificate of fitness. Therefore, prima facie an offence under section 86 of the Act is not made out. Sec. 94 of the Act makes use of a vehicle without insurance certificate punishable. But sub section (2) of section 94 makes it clear that a vehicle owned by the State Government and used for any purpose unconnected with any commercial enterprise does not require an insurance policy and as such even an offence under section 94 was not prima facie made out. I have already said earlier that under section 23, either the driver or the owner of the vehicle can be made reliable and, therefore, an offence under section 123 of the Act is also made out. Sec. 125 of the Act will only apply in case the vehicle is being driven or caused to be driven or allowed to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 94 which I already stated earlier dealing with insurance of the vehicle. A vehicle owned by the Government does not require an insurance policy and, therefore, an offence under section 125 is also not prima facie made out. Now remains only 246. Under this rule only when the lights of the motor vehicles are in use, they are to be so manipulated that danger or undue inconvenience is not caused to any person. The vehicle was checked during the day and at that time the lights of the motor vehicles were obviously not in use.