Skip to content


In Re: K.V. Subramania Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Mad27
AppellantIn Re: K.V. Subramania Ayyar
Excerpt:
- - the order of the learned sessions judge dismissing the appeal as not competent is clearly correct and the revision petition in respect of it has to be dismissed......pay fines amounting in all to rupees 45. he was also disqualified for three months for holding a driving license under section 17(1) of the act, but when an appeal was taken to the sessions court of coimbatore under section 17(7) of the act, the learned judge set aside the order of disqualification although he held that no appeal lay against the convictions. against that order criminal revision case no. 84 of 1944 has been brought, and criminal revision case no. 85 of 1944 is against the convictions by the learned joint magistrate.2. regarding the right of appeal it is contended that it is taken away by section 413, criminal p.c., only when there is a sentence of fine not exceeding rs. 50, and that as there is in addition to the fines the order of disqualification an appeal will lie.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Byers, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Joint First Class Magistrate, Goonoor, of offences punishable Under Sections 78, 86 and 116, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to pay fines amounting in all to Rupees 45. He was also disqualified for three months for holding a driving license Under Section 17(1) of the Act, but when an appeal was taken to the Sessions Court of Coimbatore Under Section 17(7) of the Act, the learned Judge set aside the order of disqualification although he held that no appeal lay against the convictions. Against that order Criminal Revision Case No. 84 of 1944 has been brought, and Criminal Revision Case No. 85 of 1944 is against the convictions by the learned Joint Magistrate.

2. Regarding the right of appeal it is contended that it is taken away by Section 413, Criminal P.C., only when there is a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 50, and that as there is in addition to the fines the order of disqualification an appeal will lie Under Section 408 of the Code. This argument assumes that an order of disqualification for holding a driving license is a punishment, but it is clear from Section 4, Criminal P.C., read with Section 53, Penal Code, that the punishment which has to be specified Under Section 367(2), Criminal P.C., cannot include an order of disqualification for holding a license. This also appears from Section 17(1), Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for the imposition of an order of disqualification in addition to any other punishment authorized by law; and Clause (7) of the same section confers upon the appellate Court the power to revise an order of disqualification although no appeal lies from the conviction. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal as not competent is clearly correct and the revision petition in respect of it has to be dismissed. Regarding Criminal Revision Case No. 85 of 1944, the convictions for disobeying a traffic signal, failing to produce the driving license, and driving recklessly or dangerously depend upon findings of fact which cannot be challenged in revision and this petition also has to be dismissed.


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