Regional Transport Officer vs Nagendra

Chidananda Ullal, J.—The State being aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.1990 passed in C.C.No. 4904/1990 by the Learned Munsiff and Additional J.M.F.C, Bhadravati imposing a fine less than the statutory minimum on the respondent-accused, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence of fine.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent-accused was chargesheeted before the Learned Munsiff and Additional J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi punishable u/s 190(2) of Central Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with Rule 115(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 1989. The respondent-accused appeared before the Learned Magistrate and pleaded guilty for the offences alleged against him, whereupon the learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- as against the respondent-accused.

It is the said order now under challenge by the State before this Court on the ground that the statutory minimum fine that could have been imposed by the Learned Magistrate would have been a minimum sum of Rs. 1,000/-

I heard the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri B.H. Satish for the appellant. Me argued that the order of the trial court now under challenge by the State is on the ground that the minimum fine required to be imposed by the trial court u/s 190(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 115(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 would have been a minimum sum of Rs. 1,000/- and that the trial court therefore had erred in imposing a paltry sum of Rs. 100/- as sentence of fine while convicting the respondent-accused. He therefore prayed for enhancement of the sentence of fine to the said statutory minimum of Rs. 1,000/-.

I have perused the records. It is true that under the above provisions of law, the sentence of fine would have been a minimum of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence committed by the respondent-accused. The section 190(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Act 1988 reads as follows:-

"Any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place a motor vehicle, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air-pollution, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine of one thousand rupees and for any second or subsequent offence with a fine of two thousand rupees".

Rule 115(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows:

"On and from the date of commencement of this sub-rule, every motor vehicle shall comply with the following standards:-

(a) Idling CO (Carbon Monoxide) emission limit for all four wheeled petrol driven vehicles shall not exceed 3 percent by volume;

(b) Idling CO emission limit for all two and three wheeled petrol driven vehicles shall not exceed 4.5 percent by volume;

(c) Smoke density for all diesel driven vehicles shall be as follows:

Method of Test

Maximum smoke Density

Light absorption Coefficient ml

Brach Units

Hartridge Units

a)

Full load at a speed of 60% to 70% of maximum engine rated speed dedared by the manufacturer.

3.1

5.2

75

b)

Free Acceleration

2.3

_

65

Despite the above being the statutory provisions, the Learned Magistrate had sentenced the respondent-accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- instead of Rs. 1,000/-. I am at loss to understand as to why the learned Magistrate had imposed the fine of Rs. 100/- instead of the statutory minimum of Rs. 1,000/- imposable. It appears to me that the learned Magistrate had passed the order as a matter of course an event without looking into the above provisions of law or else I do not find any good reason for imposition of fine of Rs. 100/-.

It is to be observed here that where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute without providing for any discretion on the courts in the matter of awarding of sentence below the prescribed minimum, the court cannot reduce the sentence to less than the minimum stipulated under the statute.

Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate erred in sentencing the respondent-accused, by imposing a fine of Rs. 100/ - instead of the statutory minimum of Rs. 1,000/- for the offences committed by him as above. The appeal is therefore liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate.

In the result, the impugned order dated 10.9.1990 passed in CC No. 4904/1990 by the learned Munsiff and Addl.J.M.F.C, Bhadravathi sentencing the respondent-accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- is set aside. The respondent-accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 190(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read Rule 115(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- the respondent-accused shall suffer imprisonment for one month. The difference of fine of Rs. 900/- (Rs. 1,000/- less Rs. 100/- already paid) shall be paid by the respondent-accused in the Trial Court within a period of one month from this day, failing which the default sentence shall stand.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.