JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Petitioner No. 1 Gobardhan Mohapatra and Petitioner No. 2 Ram Chandra Das, who were the driver and conductor respectively of motor vehicle No. G.R.B. 2504, have been convicted u/s 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to S.I. for months each by Shri A.H. Khan, Judicial Magistrate Fast Class, Balasore, in a mobile Court. The fine was realised at the spot. The allegation against the Petitioners is that on 22-7-1978 at about 7.30 p.m. they were plying the All India Tourist vehicle G.R.B. 2504 of which there was no authorisation slip of the owner to the cash conductor, the front lights were not properly black-shaded, there was no trip-sheet and the first aid box was not properly maintained. The S.I. of Town Police-Station, Balasore, stopped the vehicle and produced the accused persons before Shri A.H. Khan, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasore, who was holding mobile Court at Kuruda Chouk. It is alleged that the accused persons were convicted u/s 112 of the Act as they pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each In default to S.I. for four months each. 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners raised the following points: (1) That the maximum punishment provided for offences punishable u/s 112 of the Act is fine of Rs. 100/- and if the accused has been previously convicted of any offence under the Act and is again convicted under the same Act, the maximum punishment will be fine of Rs. 300/-. But in this case even though no previous conviction had been established the learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to S.I. for four months on each of the Petitioners which is illegal and without jurisdiction. (2) That the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence at 7.30 p.m., which is beyond the Court hours. (3) That the learned Magistrate has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner. (4) That Petitioner No. 2 not being the conductor of the vehicle but a guide for the tourists carried by the vehicle and as no conductor is attached to a contract carnage, the fine imposed on him is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. (3) That the learned Magistrate has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner. (4) That Petitioner No. 2 not being the conductor of the vehicle but a guide for the tourists carried by the vehicle and as no conductor is attached to a contract carnage, the fine imposed on him is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. Section 112 of the Act provides punishment of offences in cases where contravention of any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules is made if no other penalty is provided for the offence. Section 112 of the Act is quoted below: 112. General provision/or punishment offences- Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or if having been previously convicted of any offence under this Act he is again convicted of an offence under this Act, with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. Thus, from the provisions of Section 112 of the Act it is dear that for offences punishable under the same section the maximum fine that can be imposed is Rs. 100/- and in cases of previous conviction being proved the fine will be extended to Rs. 300/-. In this case admittedly no previous conviction has been established. So the maximum fine that could have been imposed by the learned Magistrate is Rs. 100/-. It is not understood how the Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the accused persons. This shows that the Magistrate has acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and has acted beyond his jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Mohanty next contended that Rule 1 of the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa, Criminal Volume I Chapter I provides that the Court hours shall ordinarily be from 10.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m. But in this case the Magistrate was holding mobile Court at 7:30 p.m. which should not have done and hence the trial of the Petitioners is illegal. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, cited a decision reported in Hadu Sahu Vs. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, cited a decision reported in Hadu Sahu Vs. The State, wherein it was observed as follows: It is true that ordinarily trial should take place during Court hours and in Court premises so that the parties may be able to avail themselves of legal assistance. But there may be extraordinary situations when trial may be held outside Court hours provided the accused does not object to such a course. This exception generally applies for the trial of petty offences triable as summons cases where mobile Courts trying at the spot generally prove effective. Thus, from the above observation it is clear that the petty offences which are triable as summons cases may be tried in mobile Courts and in extraordinary situations trial may be held beyond the Court hours provided the accused does not object to it. In this case, there IS nothing to show that the accused persons objected to such a trial. 5. Undoubtedly in this case the Magistrate has transgressed certain limits and has acted In an arbitrary manner the Magistrates trying cases in mobile Courts should observe certain principles so that the litigant public will have no occasion to have the feeling that the trial is being done in an improper manner and they are being persecuted. The Magistrate trying cases in mobile Courts should observe at least the following norms: (1) He should dissociate himself from investigation or detection of offences by the police, excise officers or such other agencies. (2) He should not in any manner coerce or cajole the accused to plead guilty. (3) He should observe judicial decorum and propriety. (4) He should not try cases where Imprisonment is compulsory and/or authorisation/sanction is necessary before cognizance can be taken. In such cases the accused should be given all facilities for his defence and the case should not normally be tried in mobile Court. (5) Except under extraordinary situation, he should not try cases beyond Court hours and such trial should be confined to petty offences triable as summons cases. (6) The cases involving complicated questions of law which require careful and calm thinking, should not be disposed of then and, there in a mobile Court without giving proper assistance to the accused for his defence. Mr. (6) The cases involving complicated questions of law which require careful and calm thinking, should not be disposed of then and, there in a mobile Court without giving proper assistance to the accused for his defence. Mr. Mohanty contended that as there was no trip sheet in the bus, there may be violation of Rule 83-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. But with respect to other allegations there is no violation of any at the provisions of law. Violation of any provision of the Act or rule is punishable u/s 112 of the Act where no other penalty is provided and both the Petitioners have been convicted as they pleaded guilty. 6. After hearing the arguments of both parties, while maintaining the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 112 of the Act, I reduce the sentence of fine passed against each of the Petitioners to Rs. 100/- only. As the entire fine has already been realised, the balance amount be refunded to the Petitioners. The Magistrate is cautioned that he should be careful in future. 7. With the aforesaid observation and modification in sentence, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed