JUDGMENT 1. - Invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.RC. of this court, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of guidelines in respect of submission of challan for the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act). 2. The petitioner averred in the petition that he is Registered owner of Bus No. RJ 14 P 977 having a temporary permit. On July 15, 1997 Checking Inspector made a challan of the said bus and seized it. Mobile Courts have been established for disposal of challans and Regional Transport Officer issued circular in respect of submission of challans in the Mobile Courts within stipulated period but authorities concerned intentionally withholding the challans. 3. The petitioner on December 1997 moved an application under Section 174(C) Cr.RC. in the court of Special Mobile Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur stating therein that his Bus No. RJ 14 P 977 was seized by the Flying Squad of RTO on September 15, 1997 as the petitioner intended to compound the case before the court, the RTO Jaipur be directed to submit the case file before the court. 4. Learned court below vide its order dated December 3. 1997 dismissed the application observing that the Transport Department could not have been directed to submit the complaint in the court. Assailing the said order the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Section 208 of the Act corresponds to Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 with some changes. The main change is in clause (6) of Sub-section (1), where instead of pleading guilty and remitting the fine by registered post, can now be done by money order. Section 208 of the Act was enacted with a view to protect from harassment a person guilty of minor infraction of the Act or the Rules framed, thereunder by dispensing with his presence before the Magistrate and in appropriate cases giving him an option to plead guilty to the charge and to remit the amount of fine. 7. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Rang Bahadur v. State (1980 Cr.L.J. 246) propounded thus- "We, however, are of the opinion that the Magistrate of the court concerned need not summons the accused if before the issuance of a summons the accused appears before the trial court as in this case. 7. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Rang Bahadur v. State (1980 Cr.L.J. 246) propounded thus- "We, however, are of the opinion that the Magistrate of the court concerned need not summons the accused if before the issuance of a summons the accused appears before the trial court as in this case. As has been observed by the Supreme Court. The provisions regarding serving a summons on the accused appearing in section 130 of the Act (now Section 208) have been enacted in order to confer certain benefits on the accused. So if before the court could do so the accused himself appeared before it. The purpose is served and merely because of that it would be wrong to say that the case would be taken out of the purview of section 130 of the Act (now Section 208). In case the accused pleaded guilty, cannot be denied to the accused and the court has to act in accordance with section 130 (now Section 208) of the Act as if the accused had appeared before it on being summoned in accordance with Section 130 (now section 208) of the Act." 8. I am therefore of the view that in a case where the mandatory provisions of the Act apply and the accused appears before issuance of the summons, before the court having jurisdiction to try the case, the benefits enumerated in Section 208 of the Act cannot be denied to the accused and the concerned court has to act in accordance with Section 208 of the Act and if the relevant papers are not filed by the Transport authority, the said papers may be requisitioned before passing the order. (Emphasis supplied) 9. In the case on hand when the accused petitioner appeared before the court below and prayed to compound the case under Section 208 of the Act, it was incumbent upon the court below to submit the relevant papers and thereafter to pass orders in accordance with the provisions contained in section 208 of the Act. In not doing so the learned court below committed illegality and to prevent the abuse of legal process, invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.RC. is necessary. 10. In not doing so the learned court below committed illegality and to prevent the abuse of legal process, invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.RC. is necessary. 10. Resultantly, the petitioner succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned order dated December 3, 1997 stands set-aside and the case is remitted back to learned Special Mobile ACJM Jaipur City to pass an order in accordance with Section 208 of the Act, after summoning relevant papers of the Transport Authority. Parties are directed to appear in the said court on May 12, 1998 for seeking further directions. *******