- (1.) THE petitioner Bagh Singh was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalore, for different offences under the Motor Vehicles Act) (which shall ereinafter be referred to as the Act) as detailed below: 1. For an offence under Fine of Rs. 500/-and in section 123 read with default simple section 42 of the Act for imprisonment for 20 driving Truck No. RJQ days. 2989 without permit. . . . 2. For offence under section Fine of Rs. 500/-and in 125 read with S. 94 of the defaultsimple Act for running truck No. imprisonment for 20 2989 without getting the days. truck insured. 3. For an offence under S. Fine of Rs. 50/-and in 53 read with S. 112 of. default simple the Act for driving tha imprisonment for 10 truck without a licence. days. It appears that the trial Magistrate adopted the summons procedure and on the appearance of the accused stated particulars of the offences of which he was charged, and asked the accused to show cause why he should not be convicted. In his examination in this connection the accused-petitioner gave the following answers in respect of the offences of which he was accused.
(2.) AS regards the offence under Section 123 read with Section 42 of the Act the accused admitted that he had no road permit with him and that he committed a mistake. With regards to the offence under Section 94 read with Section 125 of the Act, he pleaded that the truck was insured and he produced a cover-note which was effective for a period of one month from 23-10-1962 to 22-11-1962. As regards the third offence, the accused admitted that he had no driving licence with him.
(3.) THE Magistrate after recording the answers of the accused apparently treated the answers of the accused as admissions of guilt and did not choose to record the prosecution evidence. He, however, enquired from the accused whether he would like to produce his defence, but the accused declined to lead any defence evidence. Eventually the Magistrate recorded the convictions of the petitioner in respect of all the offences.;