BHAGABAT CHANDRA SEBAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order of conviction with sentences of fines in a case under Sections 112, 123 and 125 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been recorded on February 28, 1981, by Mr. H.B. Das, exercising the powers of a Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Panposh, in the district of Sundargarh, against the Petitioner, a driver in the Rourkela Steel Plant, on the basis of accusations not clearly stated in the prosecution report by indicating the particulars of the offences, but couched in abbreviations such as, "No RC", "No I/C" and "No RP" against the heading "Offence with section of Act or Rules" in column 6 of the prosecution report, without even mentioning clearly the offences in respect of which cognisance had been taken and stating without reasonable care: "Cog. of office is taken" (the stress given is mine and the mistake is that of the Magistrate), without any materials showing want of registration certificate, insurance certificate or route permit, for which the abbreviated expressions might have stood for and without putting any question regarding the want of such certificates and by accepting improperly and erroneously as an admission of the commission of the offences by the Petitioner an answer in the affirmative to a question improperly put, in the absence of clear accusations in the prosecution report to that effect, that the Petitioner had been driving the vehicle without the documents, without following legal procedures relating to a trial, be it in the court hall or out -side it in a mobile court and proceeding to dispose of the case, as the record would surely indicate, in undue hurry. The Petitioner, who, having no right of appeal against the order of conviction based on an admission of guilt as indicated above, recorded by a Magistrate of the First Glass except with regard to the extent or legality of the sentence as provided in Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has come to this Court in revision, must, for the aforesaid reasons, be cleared of the stamp of conviction and the burden of fines by quashing and setting at naught the impugned order.

(2.) BESIDES referring to the illegalities and irregularities just mentioned, Mr. Ashok Das for the Petitioner has invited my attention to some complaints and criticisms made by the Petitioner in the application in revision of improprieties, nay, even unfairness, not only against the prosecuting agencies, but also against the learned Magistrate which, if unfounded, might border on the area of contempt and as rightly submitted by Mr. S.K. Das, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, the allegations are not, borne out by the record. The copies of some document annexed to the application to demolish the unfounded accusations relating to want of necessary certificates and documents required to be obtained and maintained under the Motor Vehicles Act, which had not been tendered and admitted in evidence, cannot now be called in aid. But for the reasons aforesaid, I would allow the revision, set aside the order of conviction and with it the sentences of fines with a direction to refund the fine amounts to the Petitioner, if already paid.

(3.) MAGISTRATES holding mobile courts may usefully keep in mind the observations made by this Court in the cases of K.N. Sarkar v. The State : 33 (1967) C.L.T. 1158 and Gobardhan Mohapatra and Anr. v. State : 49 (1980) C.L.T. 98, for the guidance.