Skip to content


Salvadore C. Pinto Vs. the State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Criminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Petn. No. 372 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Kant144; AIR1959Mys144; 1959CriLJ750; ILR1958KAR225; (1958)36MysLJ473
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 71, 71(1), 71(2), 75 and 115
AppellantSalvadore C. Pinto
RespondentThe State of Mysore
Appellant AdvocateM.R. Suverna, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB. Venkataswamy, Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....attained finality. same can neither be ignored nor be tried in a subsequent proceeding under section 10. principle of res judicata attracted. section 11 r/w explanation 8: [s.r. bannurmath & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] res judicata held, section 11 is not exhaustive of res judicata. application of doctrine is not restricted to c.p.c., but extends to all litigations including industrial cases. section 11 is to be read in harmony with explanation 8. doctrine is founded on consideration of high public policy and said doctrine applies also between two stages in same litigation. - the prosecution having failed to do the came the conviction is not sustainable......by the learned district magistrate, south kanara, under section 71(1) read with section 115 of the motor vehicles act and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 50/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction is unsustainable. according to him, the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 71(1). the charge discloses an offence under section 71(2) of the motor vehicles act. on an examination of section 71 it is seen that section 71(1) refers to the maximum speed fixed for the vehicle itself, whereas under section 71(2) speed is restricted in respect of certain particular areas. the charge in this case indicates that the speed restricted to the area mentioned in the charge is less than the speed at.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the learned District Magistrate, South Kanara, under Section 71(1) read with Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction is unsustainable. According to him, the petitioner could not have been convicted under Section 71(1). The charge discloses an offence under Section 71(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On an examination of Section 71 it is seen that Section 71(1) refers to the maximum speed fixed for the vehicle Itself, whereas under Section 71(2) speed is restricted in respect of certain particular areas.

The charge in this case indicates that the speed restricted to the area mentioned in the charge is less than the speed at which the petitioner was driving his vehicle. If that be so, the offence willbe one that would fall under Section 71(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, before a conviction under Section 71(2) can be secured, the restricted speed must be notified in the Official Gazette and also should be duly published by causing appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act at suitable places. In this case there is no evidence to establish that any such traffic signs had been placed. This is a necessary ingredient which has to be established by the prose-cution. The prosecution having failed to do the came the conviction is not sustainable.

3. The Revision Petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside and the accused acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to him.

4. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //