HANUMAN SAHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference comes on the report oe the learned Additional Sessions Judge, sikar, dated the 15th March, 1961.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that on 17-1-61 a motor-bus No, RJV 357, which used to ply on the route between Sikar and Shrimadhopur, was checked at about 6-45 P. M. by Surajbhan Singh, Head Constable (Traffic) when it was passing near the workshop of Chandi prasad Khetan on the hospital road, Sikar, He found that the driver and the conductor had contravened certain provisions of the Rajasthan motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, and therefore both of them were prosecuted in the court of the Magistrate First Class, Sikar. It was alleged against the driver hanuman Sahai that he refused to produce his driving licence on demand by the said head constable and that he was not wearing the prescribed uniform. Against the conductor, Habib, it was alleged that he was not wearing the prescribed uniform. It was further alleged that the bus was carrying 59 passengers although the permit was given only for 48, and that five big bundles of cloth were placed on its top, with the result that the permissible height at the top was exceeded. When the case came for hearing before the Magistrate on 18-1-61, he examined both the accused under Section 242, Cri. P. C. and thereafter passed an order directing surajbhan Singh, Head Constable (Traffic) to seize the said bus for mechanical inspection and evidence in the court. In pursuance of this order the bus was seized and kept at Kotwali Sikar. On the same day, the driver presented an application before the Magistrate to the effect that the seizure of the bus would cause heavy pecuniary loss to the owner thereof and that it should be handed over to his possession. It was also stated that he was prepared to furnish security for its production before the court whenever it was needed. The Magistrate fixed 19-1-61 for arguments regarding this application, but it could not be decided on that day, since the counsel for the accused was not present. It was taken up on the next day, but again it was adjourned to 21-1-61 on the ground that the report relating to mechanical inspection was not received. When the case was taken up on 21-161, it was noted by the Magistrate that the report relating to mechanical inspection was received and that the bus should be released but it should not be plied till another certificate of fitness was obtained. The mechanical inspector was directed to comply with that order.

(3.) ON a revision application filed by the accused against the said orders, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reported that both the orders, referred above, passed by the Magistrate were wrong and should be set aside. He has also forwarded with his report an explanation of the Magistrate under Rule 80 General rules (Criminal ). The learned Magistrate has stated in his explanation that he bad nothing to say except inviting the attention of the court to Section 516a, Cri. P. C.