Judgment :- 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.289 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti and to quash the same. 2. As the result of a head on collission between two buses on 1.12.2010 as the driver of one of the buses and 10 persons died and many passengers suffered injuries. A case was registered in Crime No.l920 of 2010. Pursuant to investigation charge-sheet was filed and the case is now pending trial in C.C.No.289 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 112 r/w Section 183(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. These two Petitioners are the owners of the buses and are charged of offences under Section 112 r/w 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Sections 112 and 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read as follows: “112. Limits of speed.--(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum speed or below the minimum speed fixed for the vehicle under this Act or by or under any other law for the time being in force; provided that such maximum speed shall in no case exceed the maximum fixed or any motor vehicle or class or description of motor vehicles by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette. (2) The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary to restrict the speed of Motor vehicles in the interests of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge, by notification in the official Gazette and by causing appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under Section 116 at suitable places, fix such maximum speed limits or minimum speed limits as it thinks fit for motor vehicles or any specified class or description of motor vehicles or for motor vehicles to which a trailer is attached, either generally or in a paricular area or on a particular road or roads. Provided that no such notification is necessary if any restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month. Provided that no such notification is necessary if any restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month. (3) Nothing in this Section shall apply to any vehicle registered under Section 60 while it is being used in the execution of military manoeuvres within the area and during the period specified in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 2of the Maneuvers. Field Firing and Artillerty Practice Act, 1938(5 of 1938)”. 183. Driving at excessive speed, etc.--(1) whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the speed limits referred to in Section 112 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to four hundred rupees, or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this sub-Section is again convicted of an offence under this sub-section, with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (2) Whoever causes any person who is employed by him or is subject to his control in driving to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of the speed limits referred to in Section 112 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees, or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this sub-section, is again convicted of an offence under this sub-section, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness such person was driving at a speed which was unlawful, unless that opinion is shown to be based on an estimate obtained by the use of some mechanical device. (4) The publication of a time table under which, or the giving of any direction that, any journey or part of a journey is to be completed within a specified time shall, if in the opinion of the Court it is not practicable in the circumstances of the case for that journey or part of a journey to be completed in the specified time without contravening the speed limits referred to in Section 112 be prima facie evidence that the person who published the time table or gave the direction has committed an offence punishable under sub-Section (2). 5. 5. The only material in support of charges against these Petitioners is the 161(3) Cr.P.C statements of both conductors to the effect that the respective bus owners caused the buses to be driven at high speed informing that unless the same was done and huge collections were effected by way of gathering more number of passengers into their bus, the drivers/conductors would be deprived of their jobs. Such a case may be tenable between two buses proceeding in the same direction. It hardly would be in case of buses running in opposite directions. The charge-sheet does not inform the exceeding of any imposed speed limit as would attract Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A reading of Section 183(4) would show that there must be some material to inform that the Petitioners had given directions to their drivers/conductors to complete the journey within a specified time. In the face of such direction, it would be open to the Court to consider whether the journey or part thereof could not have been completed within such specified time without contravening the speed limits informed under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the instant cases, there absolutely is no material to indicate that these petitioners had required their drivers/conductors to complete their journey and or part thereof within a specified time. In such circumstances, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and C.C.No.289 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti stands quashed insofar as Petitioners are concerned. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.