# POORAN SINGH AND ANOTIIER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1965] 2 S.C.R. 853
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. F 215 of 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pooran-singh-and-anotiier-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-3355
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 MagisD
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 summons 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]

## Text

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 MagisD
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 summons 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 information 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 accordC
ing to law".
The Sessions Judge, Raipur in a petition moved by the
appellants made a reference to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 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"
provides:
" ( 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 registered 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 his licence fo the
F
G
H
A
B
POORAN SINGH V. STATE (Shah, /.)
855
Court with the letter containing his plea in order that
the conviction may be endorsed on the licence.
( 3) Where an accused person pleads guilty
and
remits the sum specified and has complied with
the
provisions of sub-section ( 2) , no further proceedings
in respect of the offence shall be taken against him, nor
shall he be liable to be disqualified for holding or
obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded
guilty."
Offences under ss. 112 & 124 of the Act with which the
appellants were charged are not included in the first part of the
C Fifth Schedule to the Act, and the Magistrate was therefore
bound to comply with the tenns of s. 130 ( 1 ) . There can be no
doubt on the plain tenns of s. 130(1) that the provision is
mandatory.
But there was difference of opinion about the
nature of the duty imposed by sub-s. (1) upon the Court taking
cognizance of the complaint.
The Sessions Judge held that a
D Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence of the nature specified
had, by virtue of s. 130 ( 1 ) , to make an endorsement on the
summons in terms of els. (a) & (b) and thereby to give an option
to the person charged either to appear by pleader or to plead
guilty to the charge by registered letter and remitting therewith
the sum specified in the summons, and if the Magistrate failed
E to give that option, the proceedings initiated would be liable to
be set aside as infringing the mandatory provision of the Act.
The High Court was of the view that sub-s. (I) of s. 130 left an
option to the Magistrate exercisable on a consideration of the
materials placed before him when taking cognizance of an offence
F to issue a summons without requiring the accused to appear by
pleader to call upon him to plead guilty to the charge by registered
letter and to remit the fine specified in the summons. According to
the High Court therefore the Magistrate had the option to issue a
summons with an endorsement in tenns of sub-s. (1 )(a) or of
sub-s. (I) (b) and only if a summons was issued with the endorse-
(; ment specified by sub-s. (l)(b) it was open to the accused to avail
himself of the option to plead guilty and to claim the privilege
mentioned in sub-s. ( 3) .
In our judgment the High Court was right in the view it has
taken. The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence is bound to
issue summons of the nature prescribed by sub-s. (I) of s. 130. But
H there is nothing in that sub-section which indicates that he must
endorse the summons in tenns of both the clauses (a) & (b): to
hold that he is so commanded would be to convert the conjuncIASup./65-S
856
SUPllBMB COURT REPORTS
[1965) 2 S.C.R ·
tion "or" into "and". There is nothing in the words used by the A
Legislature which justifies such a conversion, and there are strong
reasons which render such an interpretation wholly inconsistent
with the scheme of the Act.
The procedure in sub-s. (1) of s. 130 applies to cases in
which the offence charged is not one of the offences specified in B
Part A of the Fifth Schedule, but. applies to the other offences
under the Act.
The maximum penalty which is liable to be
imposed in respect of these offences defined by the Act is in no
case Rs. 25 /- or Jess. It could not have been the intention of the
Legislature that the offender, even if the case was serious enough
to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty which is permisC
sible under the section to which the provision is applicable, to
avoid imposition of a higher penalty than Rs. 25 /- by merely
pleading guilty. Section 130, it appears, was enacted with a view
to protect from harassment a person guilty of a minor infraction
of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder by
0
dispensing with his presence before the Magistrate and in appropriate cases giving him an option to plead guilty to the charge
and to remit the amount which can in no case exceed Rs. 25 /-.
H the view which prevailed with the Sessions Judge were true,
a person guilty of a serious offence meriting the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence may by pleading guilty under E
sub-s. ( 1 )(b) escape by paying an amount which cannot exceed
Rs. 25 /-. Again the Magistrate is authorised under s. 17 of the
Act in convicting an offender of ari -offence under the Act, or of
an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used,
in addition to imposing any. other punishment to pass an order
declaring the offender unfit for holding a driving licence generally,
F
or for holding a driving licence for a particular class or description of vehicle. Such an order may be passed if it appears to the
Court, having regard to the gravity of the offence, inaptitude
shown by the offender or for other reasons, that he is unfit to
obtain or hold a driving licence. But if the offender avails himself of the option given to him by the Magistrate of pleading G
guilty, no further proceeding in respect of the offence can in view
of sub-s. ( 3) of s. 130 be taken against him, and he will not be
liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, though
he may otherwise eminently deserve to be disqualified for holding
a licence.
It is true that to an offence punishable with imprisonment in
the commission of which a motor vehicle was used s. 130(1)
H
RAM DIAL v. STATE (Wanchoo, /,)
8 57
A does not apply:
s~ Sch. Five Part A Item 9. But there arc
offences under the Motor Vehicles Act which do not fall within
that description and also do not fall under other items, which arc
punishable with imprisonment e.g. s. 113(2). There are also
certain offe_nces which, if repeated but not otherwise, are liable
to be punished with imprisonment e.g. certain offences under
B ss. ll8A and under s. 123 of the Act. It would be difficult to
hold that the Legislature could have intended that irrespective of
the seriousness or gravity of the offence committeed, the offender
would- be entitled to compound the offence by paying the amount
specified in the sunimons, which the Magistrate would be bound
C to accept, if the contention raised by the appellants is correct.
Having regard to the phraseology used by the Legislature
which prima facie gives a discretion to the Magistrate exercisable
at the. time of issuing the summons, and having regard also to the
scheme of the Act, we are of the view that the High Court was
right in holding that the Magistrate is not obliged in offences not
D specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to make an endorsement
in terms of cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 130 of the Act. We are
of the opinion that the view to the contrary expressed by the High
Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Mangal Singh(') and the
High Court of Assam in State of Assam v. Suleman Khan(') on
E which the Sessions Judge relied is not correct.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
(1) (1962) I Cr.LI. 684.
(2) (1961) 2 Cr.LI. 869.
Appeal dismissed.