Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 36 (MEG)

Lurshaphrang Shongwan v. State of Meghalaya

2018-07-23

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Petitioner, an advocate by profession, in order to show concern about wrong implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short MV Act, 1988] has filed this petition stating therein that, by mistake, on 04.09.2017 he was not wearing his seat belt while driving his vehicle Alto 800 bearing registration number ML-05 P 3419, so a violation of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 138 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [for short Rules of 1989]. Like him, there were number of violators. According to him, as he has specifically pleaded in paragraph 9 of his petition, all the violators along with him stood in a queue for paying fine imposed by the respondent No.4, without raising any protest or objection whatsoever. 2. The receipt issued to him revealed that a fine of Rs. 300/- had been imposed under Section 179 of the MV Act, 1988 which was wrongly applied. He had sought information from Rynjah Traffic Branch, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong about the fine imposed on all the violators who had not worn seat belt. The said information has been furnished to him. In the list of 13 violators which include his name at serial number 4 offences have been compounded. The said list reveals that in case of some violators Section 179 of the MV Act has been applied and Rs. 300/- fine each had been imposed whereas, in case of some violators Section 177 of the MV Act has been applied and fine of Rs. 100/- had been imposed. 3. His contention is that this was his first violation. The mistake committed, not wearing seat belt is punishable under Section 177 of the MV Act and maximum fine for the first offence is fine which may extend up to Rs. 100/-, and in case second time contravention, fine could be imposed extended up to Rs. 300/-. In the case of the petitioner, the amount of fine could be maximum Rs. 100/- and minimum Rs. 50/-. 4. It is his contention that not only he but many others were subjected to the same treatment and it is only that situation which had prompted him to file this instant petition for reformation and correction of the system of imposing fine by the police. 5. 100/- and minimum Rs. 50/-. 4. It is his contention that not only he but many others were subjected to the same treatment and it is only that situation which had prompted him to file this instant petition for reformation and correction of the system of imposing fine by the police. 5. According to the learned GA, the traffic police is empowered vide notification No.TPT.115.82/Pt/164 dated 30.11.2011 to compound offences punishable under various Sections which include Sections 177 and 179 of the MV Act but while compounding, the amount of fine shall not be lesser than fifty percent of the maximum fine prescribed for the offences committed. Against the petitioner, Section 179 of the MV Act has been applied, fine prescribed is Rs. 500/- only Rs. 300/- had been imposed. 6. The first question for determination is to whether Sections 177 or 179 of the MV Act, 1988 was applicable, as against the mistake committed by the petitioner: (a) Non-wearing of seat belt while driving is violation to Rule 138 (3) of the Rules of 1989 for which punishment is not elsewhere specifically prescribed by the MV Act. When it is so, such violation has to be dealt with under Section 177 of the MV Act. (b) In case of disobedience, obstruction or refusal to divulge any information, punishment is prescribed under Section 179 of the MV Act. It shall be quite relevant to quote both the Sections: "177. General provision for punishment of offences. - Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. 179. Disobedience of orders, obstruction and refusal of information.- (1) Whoever wilfully disobeys any direction lawfully given by any person or authority empowered under this Act to give such direction, or obstructs any person or authority in the discharge of any functions which such person or authority is required or empowered under this Act to discharge, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. (2) Whoever, being required by or under this Act to supply any information, wilfully withholds such information or gives information which he knows to be false or which he does not believe to be true, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." 7. The petitioner in his petition particularly in paragraph 9 has clearly stated that by mistake he was not wearing the seat belt which is contravention to Rule 138 (3) of the Rules of 1989, but without any objection or protest like other violators he stood in the queue for payment of fine. 8. In the counter affidavit it is nowhere alleged that the petitioner in any manner had disobeyed any order or caused obstruction or refused to divulge any information. When it was so, Section 179 of the MV Act was not applicable. 9. Section 179 of the MV Act applied by the Police Officer (traffic) appears to be due to sheer ignorance of law or due to misunderstanding of the provisions of law. The case of the petitioner, in view of his clear stand in paragraph 9 of the petition which has not been rebutted, attracts applicability of Section 177 of the MV Act, 1988 and his stance that it was his first mistake therefore, fine could be maximum Rs. 100/- but when it was compounded it could be minimum Rs. 50/- is quite genuine. 10. The Police Officer (traffic) while imposing penalty upon the petitioner, has incorrectly applied Section 179 of the MV Act. Extra amount of penalty as recovered from the petitioner is liable to be refunded to him but for fair approach of the petitioner that since he espoused cause for reformation and correction, he is not inclined to ask for refund of extra amount of fine recovered from him. 11. While allowing this petition, the imposition of fine under Section 179 of the MV Act, 1988 is not sustainable. Fine imposed now under such circumstances, is to be treated to have been imposed under Section 177 of the MV Act, 1988. Imposition of fine shall not in any manner have the effect, to jeopardize any of the right of the petitioner. 12. Fine imposed now under such circumstances, is to be treated to have been imposed under Section 177 of the MV Act, 1988. Imposition of fine shall not in any manner have the effect, to jeopardize any of the right of the petitioner. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong, who shall instruct the officers/officials dealing with traffic offences to adhere to the provisions of the MV Act, 1988 in its strict sense and while compounding impose fine, after applying the appropriate provisions of MV Act, 1988. 13. Petition accordingly disposed of. (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Chief Justice Meghalaya 23.07.2018 "Lam AR-PS"