RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN Vs. THE STATE
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Raj Kumar Chauhan
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajvi Roop Singh, J.C. -
(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Tripura recommending that the summons issued on the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 12 -2 -65, is not in accordance with law and the order passed on 7 -3 -65 is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such the order of conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be set aside.
(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this reference briefly stated are these : On 31 -1 -65 the O. C., Fatekrey P. S. made a report for prosecution of the accused petitioner Rajkumar Chauhan under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that the petitioner was found driving the truck TRL -635 from north to south along Assam -Agartala road at Beheherra with S passengers excluding the driver and his assistant. On receipt of the said prosecution report the S. D. M., Kailashahar by his order dated 12 -2 -65, transferred the case for disposal to the file of Shri M. L. Das, Magistrate 2nd Class who passed an order on the same date for issue of summons to the accused to the following effect:
Received the case on transfer from S. D. M., Kailashahar. Issue summons to the accused fixing 25 -2 -65. Mention Rs. 20 to remit as fine if he pleads guilty.
Thereafter a summons was served upon the petitioner asking him to appear before the learned Magistrate on 25 -2 65; but in the summons it was not mentioned that the petitioner was to remit Rs. 20 as fine, if he pleaded guilty.
On receipt of the summons the accused petitioner filed an application for revision with the summons attached before the Sessions Judge praying for quashing of proceedings on the ground that the summons was vague. The application for revision was not accompanied by the order of the learned Magistrate, therefore, on the prayer of the learned lawyer for the petitioner, the Sessions Judge granted the petitioner time till 25 -3 -65 for filing a certified cony of the order of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly the petitioner obtained and filed a certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 12 -2 -65. In the meantime on 25 -2 -65, the learned Magistrate passed an order to the following effect:
Issue of fresh summons upon the accused person. To 19 -3 -65.
This order was followed by another order dated 7 -3 -65 passed by the learned Magistrate which is as follows:
Accused Rajkumar Chauhan available at Manu Camp, he is examined Under Section 242, Cri. P. C. by stating substance of accusation who pleaded guilty. He is convicted Under Section 112, M. V. Act and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 20 in default 5 days' R. I. Fine amount is deposited.
The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the lawyers has made this reference recommending that the order dated 12 -2 -65 is not in accordance with law and the order dated 7 -3 -63 is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such it should be set aside.
(3.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.