JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of a prosecution report in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sambalpur, for having committed the offences u/s 112, 114, 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and u/s 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1969 as well as u/s 21 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. The Petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offences and the offences being read over and explained to him, the Petitioner pleaded guilty and did not claim to be tried. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded and the learned Magistrate found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for his conviction u/s 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and fine of Rs. 200/- for his conviction under each of the other sections and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively. The Petitioner paid the fine whereafter the case was closed, but having paid the fine, preferred an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the Petitioner's conviction u/s 114, but upheld the conviction of the Petitioner under all other sections. Hence the present, revision. 2. The conviction of the Petitioner u/s 112 is for contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act inasmuch as the Petitioner had no driving licence. His conviction u/s 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act is for the fact that the vehicle was being driven without a valid permit. The conviction u/s 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act is for non-payment of passengers tax and his conviction u/s 21 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is on account of non-affixing the tax taken on the vehicle. The Petitioner in his statement admitted all his guilt. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Gobardhan Mohapatra and Another Vs. State of Orissa, that the trying magistrate has not observed the principles which are necessary while trying a case and has thus transgressed the limits and acted in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Gobardhan Mohapatra and Another Vs. State of Orissa, that the trying magistrate has not observed the principles which are necessary while trying a case and has thus transgressed the limits and acted in an arbitrary manner. Having carefully examined the aforesaid decision on which reliance has been placed and the records of the present case, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No doubt, the learned Judge in the aforesaid case has observed the norms to be followed by a magistrate trying cases in mobile Courts, but there is no assertion anywhere from which it can be inferred that the Magistrate has transgressed these norms. On the other hand, the records of the case indicate that the Magistrate did observe the aforesaid norms and accordingly the said contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be sustained. 3. The learned Counsel then contends that the accusations against the Petitioner in the prosecution report had not been clearly stated but had been couched in abbreviations and therefore, the Petitioner was seriously prejudiced in defending himself and in such circumstances, admission of the accusations cannot be the basis of an order of conviction. The learned Counsel in this connection places reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhagabat Chandra Sebak Vs. State of Orissa, There cannot be any manner of doubt that if accusations do not legally constitute an offence, then certainly the accused cannot be convicted. But with respect, I beg to differ with the observations of the learned Judge in aforesaid decision that merely because in the prosecution report. it was stated that "No R.C.", the conviction on that score would be set aside. The prosecution report for commission of offence under the Motor Vehicles Act in the printed form which has been filed in the present case indicates that as against Col. 7, Details of Licence, the entry is "could not produce." As against Col. 8. i.e., "Offence with section of Act or Rules", the entry is the driver could not produce the D.L. and R.P. in support of the vehicle. 7, Details of Licence, the entry is "could not produce." As against Col. 8. i.e., "Offence with section of Act or Rules", the entry is the driver could not produce the D.L. and R.P. in support of the vehicle. No tax token is affixed Payment of P.T. is not known." The driver of a bus cannot claim that he was prejudiced in any manner merely because it was indicated in the prosecution report that he could not produce the "D.L. and R.P." which means the driving licence find the road permit. I fail to comprehend after looking to the question put to the accused and his answer thereon as to how it can be said that the Petitioner has been prejudiced in any manner. I do not agree with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision in a broad form and in my view, a conviction cannot be held to be illegal merely because the prosecution report indicated the offence in an abbreviated form. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case to find out whether the accusations do constitute the offence or not and whether an admission of the accused can be validly accepted or not. At any rate, so far as the present case is concerned, excepting one abbreviation, the rest of the accusations have been fully described and the accused cannot be held to be prejudiced in any manner. In my view, therefore, the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in Bhagabat Chandra Sebak Vs. State of Orissa, is devoid of force. 4. No other contention having been raised, this Criminal Revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed