JUDGMENT S.N. Dwivedi, J. - This is a reference, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agra for setting aside the conviction and sentence of Bhagwan Singh and Girraj. They have been convicted by a Magistrate for various offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. 2. Bhagwan Singh is the driver and Girraj a cleaner of a transport vehicle. They have been found guilty of carrying passengers on hire in the transport vehicle. It has also been found that they did not have registration card and badge with them. Before the learned Sessions Judge it was conceded on behalf of the prosecution that Girraj, the cleaner, could not be convicted for any offence. I think that the concession has rightly been made and his conviction is liable to be set aside. 3. The conviction of Bhagwan Singh is challenged on the strength of Sec. 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 130 provides that a court taking cognizance of an offence under the Act shall, unless the offence is an offence specified in part 4 of the Fifth schedule, state upon the summon to be served on the accused person that he 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. Sub-Sec. (3) provides that where an accused person pleads guilty and remits the sum specified and has complied with the provisions of sub-Sec. (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. In the present case none of the offences for which Bhagwan Singh has been convicted are specified in part of the Fifth Schedules. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 130 therefore applied to the case. The use of the word "shall" in the sub-Section indicates that it is mandatory. Its imperative character is also indicated by the circumstances that before 1956 the word "may" was used in the sub-Sec. (1) is mandatory. A person, who pleads guilty and pays the specified amount, is not be deemed to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded guilty. Its imperative character is also indicated by the circumstances that before 1956 the word "may" was used in the sub-Sec. (1) is mandatory. A person, who pleads guilty and pays the specified amount, is not be deemed to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded guilty. It sub-Sec. (1) is not complied with and a person is convicted, the conviction may disqualify him for holding or obtaining a licence. Sub.Sec. (1) is therefore enacted in the interest of accused persons. 4. Admittedly sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 130 was not complied with. No summons was served on Bhagwan Singh. He was sent up for trial by the police. Bhagwan Singh has therefore been seriously prejudiced by non-compliance with sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 130. 5. I, therefore, accept the reference, set aside his conviction and sentence and send back the case to the Magistrate for trying the case in accordance with law. He should first send a summons to Bhagwan Singh in accordance with sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 130 and if Bhagwan Singh fails to plead guilty and to send the amount specified in the summons as well as his licence, the learned Magistrate may further proceed to try him. 6. The conviction and sentence of Girraj are set aside. The fine, if paid by him, shall be refunded.