JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The General Manager O.R.T. Co., was prosecuted u/s 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) and under Sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (Act III of 1931) hereinafter referred to as the Act and Madras Act respectively. The charge against the Petitioner is that he failed to carry in a conspicuous place upon the vehicle the license granted in respect of motor vehicle and that he failed to pay the tax due in respect of the vehicle. Summons were issued to the Petitioner wherein the aforesaid sections were quoted and the Petitioner was required to appear 'in person' before the Court of Shri G.C. Ray, Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. On 20th July, 1965, the date fixed, the Petitioner appeared through Shri Y.K. Murty, Advocate. A petition was filed by the Advocate to allow the accused to be represented by him. The learned Magistrate rejected this prayer by passing the following order: It will appear from the summons that the accused was directed to appear before the Court in person. I feel, this is necessary for the purpose of identification before the proceedings against this accused commence in this Court. Moreover this is a case under Motor Vehicles Act and the accused cannot be allowed to be represented at this stage. As soon as he appears before the Court, and after bearing him, if necessary, the question of representation will be considered. Petition for representation is therefore rejected. Issue fresh summons to the G.M., O.R.T. Co. to appear in person before the Court on 13-8-1965. Against this order a Criminal Revision was filed before the A.D.M. (J.), Ganjam. He has recommended for quashing of this order and has gone a step further in stating that the entire proceeding should be quashed on the ground that the driver and conductor had already been convicted and so the owner should not be prosecuted. 2. The second part of the recommendation is wholly without jurisdiction. There was no application before the learned Magistrate for quashing the proceeding and the question of making a recommendation for quashing the proceeding did not arise. It was open to the Petitioner to canvass this question before the Magistrate and to move in revision in this Court for quashing the proceeding if it was legally tenable. There was no application before the learned Magistrate for quashing the proceeding and the question of making a recommendation for quashing the proceeding did not arise. It was open to the Petitioner to canvass this question before the Magistrate and to move in revision in this Court for quashing the proceeding if it was legally tenable. The Reference, so far as this part of the case is concerned, is discharged. 3. The main question for consideration in this case is whether the Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction properly in refusing the representation of the Petitioner through a lawyer and in compelling him to appear in Court in person. So far as the offence u/s 112 of the Act is concerned, Section 130 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed in such a case. Section 130(1)(a) arid (b) may be quoted: (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 be (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. It may be noted that the offence u/s 112 of the Act does not come within anyone of the offences referred to in Part A of the Fifth Schedule. In such a case two courses are open to the Court for taking cognizance of the offence. He shall state upon the summons to be served on the accused that he may appear by pleader and not in person, or would state upon the summons calling upon the accused 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. There was some controversy as to whether the Magistrate must, simultaneously follow both the alternatives. This has been set at rest in Pooran Singh and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein their Lordships have stated that the provisions of Section 130(1) are mandatory and the Magistrate has full discretion to resort to one of the alternatives. There was some controversy as to whether the Magistrate must, simultaneously follow both the alternatives. This has been set at rest in Pooran Singh and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein their Lordships have stated that the provisions of Section 130(1) are mandatory and the Magistrate has full discretion to resort to one of the alternatives. In this case the learned Magistrate appears to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 130(1)(a). In such a case he should have stated upon the summons to be served on the accused that he might appear by pleader and not in person. The learned Magistrate followed the/contrary of what the section prescribes. His order cannot therefore be supported so far as the offence u/s 112 of the Act is concerned. He failed in his duty in not following the statutory provision when an application was filed for representation he should have rectified his own mistake and should have allowed representation through a pleader. As the order of the learned Magistrate is untenable in law the Reference to this extent is accepted. The Petitioner must therefore be allowed to appear through a pleader relating to the offence u/s 112 of the Act. 4. Coming to the question of the offence under Sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Act, it is to be made clear that there is no specific provision in that Act as to representation of an accused through a pleader analogous to the provision made in Section 130 of the Act. In the absence of a specific provision in that Act and in the absence of provisions that Section 130 of the Act is applicable to offences under the Madras Act, Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure would have full application. The learned Magistrate should have applied his mind to the facts of the case and considered whether the Petitioner should have been allowed to be represented through a pleader. 5. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has been allowed by this Court to appear through a pleader u/s 112 of the Act, I would allow the Petitioner to be also represented through a pleader in respect of offences under Sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Act without further remanding the case to the Magistrate for reconsideration of the question of representation u/s 205, Criminal Procedure Code. 6. 6. In the result, the Reference is accepted in part. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 20-7-1965 is set aside and the Petitioner is allowed to be represented through a pleader. Reference accepted in part. Final Result : Allowed