9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (9) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rice. The driver of the lorry was subsequently charged by the police under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act in C. C. 602 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mangalore. After a full enquiry, the Magistrate discharged the accused driver holding that the accusation was groundless. This order was passed on 6-1-1951. 2. Meanwhile, the Regional Transport Officer called upon the petitioner by a communication dated 3-11-1950 to show cause why his permit should not be cancelled or suspended as the lorry was engaged in smuggling food grains. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the officer passed an order on 3-3-1951 suspending the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8482 of 1950 (Mad) that though the attitude of a quasi judicial tribunal like the Transport Authority in ignoring the judgment of a criminal Court may be regrettable, it did not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There was nothing to compel the tribunal to accept the judgment, though it was not proper for a quasi judicial tribunal to ignore the well considered judgments of courts, whether civil or criminal, without giving adequate reasons. After hearing arguments for some time, the learned Judge felt a doubt as to whether his prior view was correct. He was impressed by the other aspect, namely, that when a criminal court acquitted or discharged the driver of a public carriage on the ground that he did not commit an offence, and if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be treated as conclusive in proceedings before quasi judicial tribunals like the Transport Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. A similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of which one of us was a member in--'C. M. P. No. 3367 of 1948 (Mad)'. No doubt that case arose under the provisions of the Madras Rationing Order, but the principle of that decision applies to the facts of this case also. In that case the petitioner was an authorised dealer in rice. He was charged in the criminal court for having sold 30 measures to a person to whom he was not entitled to sell. 5. The Rationing Officer on the same ground purported to cancel the authorisation in his favour. The criminal case had not been disposed of when the Rati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time the Road Transport Tribunal disposes of any application or before such tribunal passes an order no prosecution has been launched, then of course it is not incumbent on the tribunal to await a criminal prosecution. But if a prosecution has actually commenced and that prosecution is in respect of the same offence by reason of which the Transport Authority proposes to take drastic action against the accused in the criminal case, then, it is desirable that the Transport Authority should await the decision of the criminal Court. This procedure would avoid the spectacle of two departments of the Government proceeding on contradictory lines to the annoyance and hardship of the citizen. 7. In the case before us, the order of the Regional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
