Summary
For offences under ss. 112 and 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Magistrate issued process against the appellants for their appearance in court by pleader, but did not make any endorsement thereon in terms of s. 130(1)(b) of the Act.
The appellants submitted that the summons served on them were not according to law and the failure to make this endorsement had deprived them of their right conferred by the Act to intimate without appearing in Court their plea of guilty and remitting an amount not exceeding Rs. 25 as may be specified. The trial Magistrate rejected this plea, but on being moved by the appellants, the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate be set aside. The High Court declined to accept the reference. In appeal by certificate: HELD : The Magistrate was not obliged in offences not specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to make an endorsement in terms of s. 130(1) (b) of the Act. [857 D]The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence was bound to issue summons of the nature prescribed by sub-s. (1) of s.130. But there is nothing in that subsection which indicates that he must endorse the summons in terms of both cls. (a) & (b) : to hold that he was commanded would be to convert the conjunction "or" into "and". [855 H-856 All]See the full content of this document
Extract
Pooran Singh And Another VS. State Of Madhya Pradesh
PETITIONER: POORAN SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1965BENCH: SHAH, J.C.BENCH: SHAH, J.C.GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)HIDAYATULLAH, M.SIKRI, S.M.CITATION: 1965 AIR 1583 1965 SCR (2) 853ACT: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), s. 130(1)-Endorsement on summons-Failure-Whether vitiates.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1963.Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 30, 1963 of the Madhya Pra...
See the full content of this document