1. Although the petitioners in these two cases are different the point raised in revision by each of them is the same, so a common order for their disposal will suffice. The petitioners have each been convicted of exceeding local speed limits, in Coimbatore, punishable under Section 115 read with Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and have been sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 50 and Rs. .30 respectively with simple imprisonment in default of payment....'
2. There is no dispute about the facts. Both the petitioners were detected exceeding the speed limit on different roads within the municipality and the only point taken in revision is that the imposition of the speed limits by the regional transport authority under Rule 412 of the rules framed under the Act had not been notified in the Official Gazette in accordance with Section 71 (2) of the Act. At the time of admitting these petitions, Mr. Jayarama Ayyar, the petitioners' learned advocate in each case, pointed out that there was no evidence of any notification in accordance with the Act, but at the time of hearing he has further contended that there was not only no evidence of any notification but that no notification had ever been made. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that there has in fact been no notification in the Official Gazette as laid down by Section 71 (2) and in view of this he is not in a position to support the convictions. The provisions of Section 71(2) of the Act are mandatory and it is necessary before the imposition of a speed limit can be enforced that there should be a prior notification in the Gazette.
3. In the result the petitions are allowed, the convictions are set aside and the fines if collected are ordered to be refunded.