POORAN SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 03-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
.POORAN SINGH AND ANOTIIER 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
February 3, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. Hll>AYATULLAH, I. c. SHAH 
ANDS. M. SIKRI, JI.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), •· 130(1}-Endorsement on 
•ummo-Failure-Whether vitiates. 
For offences under ss. 112 and 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 
C 
Magistrate issued process against the appellants for their appearance in 
llDllrt by pleader, but did not make any endorsement thereon in terms of 
s. 130(1 )(b) of the Act. The appellants submitted that the SUllllllDDS 
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 Magis-
D 
Irate 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 
tho 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( I )(b) of the Act. (857 D] 
E 
The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence was bound to issue 
summons of the nature prescribed by sub-<;. (I) of s. 130. But there is 
nothing in that sub-<;ection which indicates that he must endorse the sum-
mons in terms of both els. (a) & (b) : to hold that he was commanded 
would be to convert the conjunotion "or" into "and". (855 H-856 A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
F 215 of 1963. 
G 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 30, 1963 of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 
1963. 
Ravinder Narain, 0.C. Mathur and J. B. Dadachanji, for the 
appellants. 
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. Station House Officer, Gharsiwa filed an informa-
tion in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Raipur against the 
H two appellants complaining that they had on March 10, 1962 
allowed three passengers to occupy the f~ont seat in a public carrier 
and had loaded goods in excess of the sanctioned weight, and had 
854 
SUPllBMB COUllT RBPORTS 
[1965] 2 S.C.R. 
thereby committed offences punishable under ss. 124 and 112 of A 
the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939. 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( I )(b) 
of the Act. The appellants submitted that the summonses served 
upon them were not according to law and the Magistrate by failing 
B 
to make an endorsement on the summonses as required by cl. (b) 
of sub-s. (1) of s. 130 of the Act had deprived them of the 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 Magistrate rejected this plea and directed 
that the case against the appellants be "proceeded further accord-
C 
ing to law". 
The Sessions Judge, Raipur in a petition moved by the 
appellants made a reference to the High Court of Madhya Pra-
desh recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate be 
set aside, for in his view the Trial Magistrate having failed to D 
comply with the mandatory terms of s. 130( 1) (b) the proceeding 
against the appellants was unlawful. The High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh declined to accept the reference. 
Against that order, 
with certificate granted by the High Court, the appellants have 
preferred this appeal. 
Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act which occurs in Ch. E 
IX which relates to "Offences, penalties and procedure" 
pro-
vides: 
" ( 1 ) A Court taking cognizance of an 
offence 
under this Act shall, unless the offence is an offence 
specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule, state upon 
the summons to be served on the accused person that 
he-
(a) may appear by pleader and not in person, or 
(b) may by a specified date prior to the hearing of 
the charge plead guilty to the charge by register-
ed letter and remit to the Court such sum not 
exceeding twenty-five rupees as the Court may 
specify. 
(2) Where the offence dealt with in accordance 
with sub-section (I ) is an offence specified in Part B 
of the Fifth Schedule, the accused person shall, if he 
pleads guilty of the charge, forward
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.