RANAWAT Ag. , C. J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, dated the 29th of June, 1959.
(2.) STATION House Officer, Dausa, checked bus No. RJL 2712 in front of the police STATION, Dausa; on the 12th of January, 1959. Ishwardas is the owner of the bus and Abdul Rashid its driver. Certain defects were found e. g. the tax had not been paid and the driving licence was not present with the driver etc. The police challaned both the accused to the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dausa, who, after recording the statements of the counsel of the accused persons, accepted the plea of guilty and convicted both of them u/s. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Instead of sentencing the accused the learned Magistrate allowed them the benefit of sec. 562 (1a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On revision, the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, has made this reference, for, in his opinion, the provisions of section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not applicable to this case inasmuch as an offence under sec. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act is punishable with fine only, and also because the benefit of sec. 562 (1a) is not available for offences not punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Sec. 562 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to persons not under 21 years of age, if they are convicted of offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than seven years, and to persons under 21 years of age, or any woman, if convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and no previous conviction proved against them. Sec. 562 (1a) is applicable to cases in which a person is convicted of theft, or the other offences mentioned therein, or any offence under the I. P. C. punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment, and no previous conviction is proved against the accused. There is no mention of offences punishable with fine only either in sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (1a) of sec. 562 and the learned District Magistrate has, therefore, come to the conclusion that this case did not fall within the purview of sec. 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have been referred to a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Vaijappa Shivlingappa Humberwadi Vs. Emperor (1) in which Beaumont C. J. made the following observations: - The legislature has not in the sec. dealt expressly with the case of an offence punishable only with fine. If one takes the language of the sec. quite literally, it would appear that a person not under 21 years of age who is convicted of an offence punishable with a fine, that punishment not being "imprisonment for not more than seven years," cannot be dealt with under the section, whereas a person who is under 21 years or age, or any woman, convicted of an offence punishable only with a fine, that punishment not being "death or transportation for life", can be dealt with under the section and any person convicted of an offence punishable only with fine which falls within sub-S. (la) can be dealt with under the section because fine is 'not more than two years' imprisonment. No rational reason has been suggested by the Government Pleader, nor can I see one, for any distinction being drawn between the case of an adult male person convicted of an offence punishable with fine and any other person so convicted. In construing an Act of Parliament the Court always has to ascertain the intention of the Legislature from the language of the whole enactment, and it sometimes becomes necessary to do a certain amount of violence to the language in which a particular passage is couched in order to give effect to the intention to be gathered from the enactment as a whole. Reading S. 562, sub-secs (1) and (1a), it seems to me quite clear that they are dealing with cases of first offenders where the conviction is for an offence of less than a certain degree of gravity, the degree of gravity being measured by the maximum punishment which can be imposed for the offence, and the intention is to enable such first offenders to be dealt with leniently. It is clear that an offence punishable with fine only is an offence of a minor character, of very much less gravity than an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. Reading the section as a whole, I have no doubt whatever that the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than seven years" was intended to be read in the same sense as the expression in sub-sec. (la) "offence punishable with not more than two years 'imprisonment," and that both expressions were intended to cover offences punishable with a less severe sentence than those indicated and therefore to include offences punishable only with fine". It seems reasonable to interpret sac. 562 in the manner in which it has been interpreted by Beaumont C. J. for the simple reason that the Legislature would not have omitted to show leniency in the case of smaller and minor offences when it allowed leniency for more serious offences. If sub-sections (1) and (1a) of sec. 562 are literally interpreted, the opinion of the learned Additional District Magistrate may be regarded as proper. But it is not always safe to adhere to a literal interpretation of the law when the intention of the Legislature, by reading the provision on the whole, appears to be different. Where clear indication of the intention of the Legislature is available, it is proper to give effect to the intention notwithstanding some lacuna |in the language employed in the statute. We are therefore in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Chief Justice of Bombay. In our opinion, sec. 562 (1) is also applicable to offences punishable with fine only. The provision of Sec. 562 (1a) is, however, attracted only to cases relating to the specified offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and this case not being for the specified offences cannot fall within the scope of sec. 562 (1a ). There is no such limitation for the application of sec. 562 (1) and it can, therefore, be extended to cover the case of an offence punishable with fine only under an enactment other than the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate was therefore wrong in invoking sec. 562 (1a) and also in releasing the accused without even an admonition. He could, however, have allowed them the benefit of sec. 562 (1) and released them on executing bonds as provided in that section. As more than two years have elapsed since then, no useful purpose will be served by our ordering the Magistrate to take the bonds of the accused persons under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We would therefore dismiss the reference with the foregoing observations. .;