ARUN KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against thejudgment dated 5/12/1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi acquitting the respondent for offenceunder section 190 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Brieflythe facts are that the respondent had been summoned under section 2:) Criminal Procedure Code. on me allegation that on 21/07/1995 atabout 9. 55 A. M. he was fomia driving vehicle No. DL-2cd 2892at the Raja Garden Chowk, New Delhi The vehicle driven by therespondent was found emitting excessive smoke density in violation of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989hereinafter referred to as the CMV Rules ). The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On checking for pollution thevehicle driven by the accused was found to be emitting smokedensity of Carbon Monoxide 5. 7 per cent which is far in excessto the standard prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 115 accordingto which it should not exceed 3 per cent by volume. ( 2 ) ON facts there is no dispute in this case because in hisstatement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. the accused admitted thathe was driving the Maruti Van No. DL-2cd 2892 and pollutionof the same was checked and was found as per the meter to be6 5. 7 per cent smoke density. The learned Metropolitan Magistrateacquitted the accused purely on the basis of a construction ofrules 115 and 116 of the CMV Rules. The learned counsel forthe appellant has challenged the interpretation placed by thelearned Metropolitan Magistrate on the said Rules and the reasoning contained in the impugned judgment. Since a pure question of law regarding interpretation of the said Rules is involvedit will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portoions of therules: 115. Emission of smoke, vapour, etc. from motor vehicles:- (1) Every motor vehicle other than motor cycles ofengine capacity not exceeding 70 cc, manufactured prior to the first day of March 1900, shall bemaintained in such condition and shall be so drivenso as to comply with the standards prescribed in these rules; (2) On and from the date of commencement this subrule, every motor vehicle shall comply with thefollowing standards:- (a) Idling, CO (Carbon Monoxide) emission limitfor all four-wheeled petrol-driven vehicles shallnot exceed 3 per cent by volume; (b) Idling CO emission limit for all two and three-wheeled petrol-driven vehicles shall not exceed4. 5 per cent by volume; (c) Smoke density for all diesel-driven vehicles x x x. (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x (6) x x x (7) After the expiry of a period of one year from theday on which the motor vehicle was first registered,every such vehicle shall carry a valid pollutionunder Control certificate issued by an agencyauthorised for this purpose by the State Government. The validity of the certificate shall be forsix months or any lesser period as may be specifiedby the State Government from time to time andthe certificate shall always be carried in the vehicleand produced on demand by the officers referredto in sub-rule (1) of Rule 116. (8) The certificate issued under sub-rule (7) shall,while it remains effective be valid throughout India. Rule 116. Test ofr smoke emission level and Car-bon Monoxide level for vehicles :- - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 115 any officer, not below the rankof Sub-Inspector of Police or the Inspector ofmotor Vehicles who has reason to believe that amotor vehicle is not complying with the provisionsof sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (7) of Rule 115, mayin writing direct the driver or any person inchargeof the vehicle to submit the vehicle tor conductingthe test to measure the standards of emission illanyone or the authorised testing stations, and produce the certificate to an authority at the addressmentioned in the written direction within sevendays from the date of conducting the check. (2) The driver or any person in-charge of the vehicleshall upon such direction by the officer referred toin sub-rule (1) submit the vehicle for testing forcompliance of the provisions of sub-rule (2) ofrule 115, at any authorised testing stations. (3) The measurement of compliance of the provisionsof sub-rule (2) of Rule 115 shall be done with ameter of the type approved by any agency referredto in Rule 126 of the principal rules or by thenational Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur-440001;provided that such a testing agency shall followiso or ECE standards and procedures for approvalof measuring meters. (4) If the result of the tests indicate that the motorvehicle complies with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 115, the driver or any person inchargeof the vehicle shall produce the certificate to theauthority specified in sub-rule (1) within the stipulated time limit. (4) If the result of the tests indicate that the motorvehicle complies with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 115, the driver or any person inchargeof the vehicle shall produce the certificate to theauthority specified in sub-rule (1) within the stipulated time limit. (5) If the test results indicate that the motor vehicledoes not comply with the provisions of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 115, the driver or any person in-charge of the vehicle shall rectify the defects so asto comply with the provisions of the sub-rule (2)of Rule 115 within a period of seven days andsubmit the vehicle to any authorised testing stationfor re-check and produce the certificate so obtained from the authorised testing station to the authority referred to in sub-rule (1 ). (6) If the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1) is notproduced within the, stipulated period of sevendays or if the vehicle fails to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 115 within a periodof seven days, the owner of the vehicle shall beliable for the penalty prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 190 of the Act. (7) If the driver or any person in charge of the vehicle referred to in sub-rule (1) does not producethe said certificate within the said period of sevendays, such vehicle shall be deemed to have contravened the provisions of the sub-rule (2) of Rule115 and the checking officer shall report the matterto the registering authority. (8) The registering authority shall on receipt of thereport refer to in sub-rule (7) for reasons to berecorded in writing, suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle until such time the certificate is produced before the registering authorityto the effect that the vehicle complies with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 115. (9) On such suspension of the certificate of registrationof the vehicle, any permit granted in respect ofthe vehicle under Chapter V or under Chapter VIof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be deemedto have been suspended until a fresh "pollutionunder control" certificate is obtained. ( 3 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate posed the followingquestions for consideration in the case "the only question whichis required to be answered by this Court is whether Inspectors ofstate Transport Authority are empowered to challan the driverof the vehicles, which are found emitting smoke density withoutfollowing the procedure laid down under rule 116 of the CMVRules ? ( 3 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate posed the followingquestions for consideration in the case "the only question whichis required to be answered by this Court is whether Inspectors ofstate Transport Authority are empowered to challan the driverof the vehicles, which are found emitting smoke density withoutfollowing the procedure laid down under rule 116 of the CMVRules ? The Question was answered holding the the Inspectorsof the State Authority cannot challan the motorists for violationof the provisions of sub-rule (2) of sub-rule F7) of Rule 115without following the procedure laid down under Rule 1)6. Onthe basis of the opening words of Pule 116, i. e,, "notwithstandinganything contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 115 any officer. . . . who has reason to believe that a motor vehicle is not complyingwith the provisions of sub-rule (2) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 115may in writing direct. . . . . . it was held that Rule 116 has anover-riding effect and in every case where Rule 1 15 is to be invokedthe inspectors must first follow the procedure proscribed underrule 116. The learned judge further concluded that from a barereading of Rule 116 it becomes char that Inspectors of motorvehicles have no power to circumvent the procedure laid downa under Rule 116. They cannot challan anybody directly underrule 115 read with section 190 Motor Vehicles Act without following the procedure laid down in Rule 116. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was conscious of the consequences of his decision because he observed in the impugned judgment that tillrule 116 is in force, it will not be possible to control pollutioneffectively and, therefore, he recommended that Rule 116 shouldbe abolished. ( 4 ) WE have carefully considered the impugned judgment andthe reason contained therein for holding that none can be challanged under Rule 115 without following the procedure prescribedunder Rule 116 of the CMV Rules. We are unable to subscribeto the view taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate regard-ing the said Rules. In our opinion Rules 115 and 116 are independent of each other and for booking somebody under Rule 115it is not mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed underrule 116. We are unable to subscribeto the view taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate regard-ing the said Rules. In our opinion Rules 115 and 116 are independent of each other and for booking somebody under Rule 115it is not mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed underrule 116. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 115 prescribes the smoke emission standards for the various types of vehicles which use theroads while sub-rule (7) makes it compulsory for every vehicleto carry a valid "pollution under control" certificate issued by anagency authorised for this purpose by the State Government. Thusany vehicle which violates the smoke emission standards prescribed under sub-rule (2) commits an offence and attracts the provisions of section 190 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Similarlya vehicle which is required to carry a pollution under control certificate as per sub-rule (7), must carry. such a certificate atall times and such certificate should be produced on demand by. the concerned officer. Not carrying a certificate by itself is anoffence for which one can be booked and punished under section190 (2) of the M. V. Act. Nothing else is relevant or required. These are strict liability offences and have to be strictly enforced. Section 190 (2) also needs to be reproduced at this stage to havea complete picture. "190. Using vehicle in unsafe condition: (1) x x x x x x x x (2) Any person who drives or causes or allows to bedriven, in any public place a motor vehicle, whichviolates the standards prescribed in relation toroad safety, control of noise and air pollution,shall be punishable for the first offence with a fineof one thousand rupees and for any second or subsequent offence with a fine of two thousand rupees. " ( 5 ) VIOLATION of sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (7) of Rub 115 iscovered within the meaning of "standards prescribed in relationto road safety, control of noise and air pollution", it is for purposesof controlling air pollution that the motorists are required undersub-rule (7) of Rule 115 to carry a certificate regarding pollutionunder control . Similarly it is for controlling air pollution thatstandards have been prescribed in sub-rule: (2) of Rule 115 regarding permissible levels of smoke emission. ( 6 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate has misconstruedthe words ^notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (7)of Rule 115" occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 116. Similarly it is for controlling air pollution thatstandards have been prescribed in sub-rule: (2) of Rule 115 regarding permissible levels of smoke emission. ( 6 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate has misconstruedthe words ^notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (7)of Rule 115" occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 116. This onlymeans that independently of the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule115, the specified officers of the transport authority may follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 116. This does not mean thatfollowing the procedure prescribed in Rule 116 is a must inevery case and without following the same, a person cannot bebooked under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (7) of Rule 115. Sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (7) lay down statutory requirements which areindependently punishable in the event of violation. They hold thefield on their own force. They are not dependent on Rule 116. Rule 116 which was introduced in the eyar 1993 seeks to createadditional safe-guards in the area of air pollution by vehiculartraffic and it in no way waters down the vigour of Rule 115. Theframers of Rule 116 must be taken to be fully conscious of theever-increasing menace of smoke pollution on roads and in orderto check the same and in order to provide further safe-guards inthis behalf they introduced Rule 116 on the Statute book. The intention could in no way be said to waters down Rule 115. Theimpugned judgment is thus clearly based on a misreading ofrule 116. To further illustrate this we may note that even if aperson has a certificate regarding pollution under control as persub-rule (7) of Rule 115, he may be subjected to the procedureprescribed in Rule 116. Similarly the procedure under Rule 116can still be followed where a vehicle owner does not possess pollution under control certificate as required by sub-rule (7)of Rule 115. Thus either way, i. e. whether one complies with sub-rule (7) or one does not comply with sub-rule (7) of Rule 115,the procedure under Rule 116 can still be followed. The tworules in our view are independen of each other and do notderive their strength from each other. Just as non-possession of pollution under certificate may attracts penalty under section19c (2) of the MV. Act, non-observation of standard of smokeemission prescribed in sub-rule (2) will attract penalty undersection 190 (2) of the Act. The tworules in our view are independen of each other and do notderive their strength from each other. Just as non-possession of pollution under certificate may attracts penalty under section19c (2) of the MV. Act, non-observation of standard of smokeemission prescribed in sub-rule (2) will attract penalty undersection 190 (2) of the Act. ( 7 ) UNIFORTUNATELY the provision of section 213 of the Motorsvehicles Act, 1988 escaped the notice of the trial court whiledeciding the case. Belore us also me said provision was not broughtto our notice. We feel that section 213 has an important bearingon the controversy before us. The said section deals with theappointment of Motor Vehicle Officers by the State Government. Under sub-section (3) of section 213, the State Government isauthorised to make rules to regulate the discharge by officersof the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions, the dutiesto be performed by them, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by themand the conditions governing the exercise of such powers. Sub-section (5) confers certain powers on such officers in additionto the powers, conferred on them by the Motor Vehicles Department under sub-section (3 ). The relevant among them are :- (A) make such examination and inquiry as he thinks fitin order to ascertain whether the provisions of thisact and the rules made thereunder are being observed. (b) with such assistance, if any, as he things fit, enter,inspect and search any premises which is in the occupation of a person who, he has reason to believe, hascommitted an offence under this Act or in which amotor vehicle in respect of which such offence hasbeen committed is kept. " ( 8 ) UNDER the proviso to the said section, such officer is authorised to examine any person and require the production of anyregister or ether document maintained in pursuance of this Act,and take on the spot or otherwise statements of any person whichhe may consider necessary for carrying out the purpose of thisact. Further, the officers are authorised to launch prosecutionsin respect of any offence under the Act and take a bond forensuring the attendance of the offenders before any court. ( 9 ) THE examination and inquiry referred to in clause (a) ofsub-section (5) will naturally be taken to include examinationof the person as well as property vehicle. Further, the officers are authorised to launch prosecutionsin respect of any offence under the Act and take a bond forensuring the attendance of the offenders before any court. ( 9 ) THE examination and inquiry referred to in clause (a) ofsub-section (5) will naturally be taken to include examinationof the person as well as property vehicle. Thus, the above provision of the Act confers ample powers on the officers of the Motorvehicles Department to check or examine the vehicles which may be suspected by the officers to be not complying with theprovisions of the Act or the Rules. This would mean that de horsrule 116, the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department areempowered to ensure compliance of Pule 115 particularly sub-rules (2) and (7), which are under consideration in this appeal. Interestingly, as already noted, Rule 116 was brought on thestatute book in March 1993. Prior to this Rule being broughtinto force, prosecutions under Rule 115 must have been goingon tor violation of Rule 115, because Rule 115 has been in forcesince much prior to Rule 116. It cannot be said that by bringingin to force Rule 116, the legislature has watered down what was already in existence in the shape of Rule 115. The object in bringing Rule 116 into force was to tackle the problem of air pollutionthrough motor vehicles more vigorously, in our view, section 213of the Act leaves no scope for the view contained in the impugnedjudgment of the trial court. ( 10 ) THE result is that this appeal is allowed. The impugnedjudgment dated 5/12/1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi is set aside. The proceedings in relationto the challan against the respondent will continue before theconcerned Metropolitan Magistrate from the stage at which theywere before the impugned judgment. Parties to appear before theconcerned Metropolitan Magistrate on 9/01/1997.