Some Nath Chakrabarty vs The State of Bihar and Another

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

Petitioner is a Branch Manager of a trading agency which deals with several items including Nippo Batteries. In 1996 the informant, a police officer, lodged Kadamkuan PS Case No. 142 of 1 alleging that contrary to orders of the District Magistrate three trucks had parked in certain residential areas of town of Patna which were within no parking zone. The FIR alleged an offence u/s 431 of the IPC against the truck drivers and persons whose name were disclosed by the three drivers as owners of the goods which were be carried in those trucks. Charge sheet submitted and cognizance taken in case on 20.5.1996. In 1997, Petitioner alleged the order of cognizance before Court on the ground that he had no rule play because he is neither the owner of his vehicle nor its driver. He denied any of the trucks. That quashing application was dismissed with observation Petitioner may raise his objection at appropriate stage. Subsequently, at the of framing of charges Petitioner prayed discharge and the said prayer has been submitted by the impugned order dated 17.8.2001.

On behalf of the Petitioner it has been submitted that even if the allegations accepted as correct then only an of under the Motor Vehicles Act is made which is punishable with fine u/s 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It further been submitted that in order to Section 431 of the IPC there must allegation of mischief as defined u/s 425 of the IPC which is attracted when wrongful loss or damage to the public or any property is caused or any such change is effected in any property which destroys or diminishes its value or utility.

On going through the materials on record the aforesaid submission on behalf the Petitioner appears to be worth acceptance. There is no allegation of any loss damage to public or any property and hence no offence u/s 431 of the is attracted. As per judgment of the Apex Court the petty offence under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be allowed to continue for such a long period and it was case where the trial Court should have charged the Petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is alleged. The prayer (sic - prosecution) in Petitioner is concerned is set aside Petitioner is ordered to be discharged criminal prosecution in connection with Kadamkuan PS Case No. 142 of 1996 (GR No. 055/96).