Sunday, June 29, 2014
Even a phone call which causes annoyance to others may land you in dilemma under section 66A of Information Technology Act... Article
Even a phone call which causes annoyance to others may land you in dilemma under section 66A of Information Technology Act... Article
SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT - Article.. Retired life @ stationery shop
People used to plan their retired life; especially if they are working in Government Departments. This is a real story of a man who got entangled in the clutches of labour law, after starting a stationery shop to avail his free time after retirement.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
TIGHTEN THE LEGAL BELT; BEFORE CHARGING CASES ON SEAT BELT - An open letter to Authorities.
AN OPEN LETTER ON COMPULSORY SEAT
BELTS...to the
AUTHORITIES CONCERNED
TIGHTEN
THE LEGAL BELT; BEFORE CHARGING CASES ON SEAT BELT
Obviously, the decision by
Transport Commissioner of Kerala to take stringent measures against those who
fail to wear seat belt while driving cars is a good move indeed. It can reduce
death rate in accidents. But the latest ultimatum by the officials that they
would charge cases against those who are not wearing seat belt; is legally
sustainable?
Off course, the issue is
hyper technical. But law is law. Recently, an enforcement officer of Motor
Vehicles Department declared in a news paper that, they will charge fine
ranging from Rs 100 to Rs 500. How dare he can say so, when the legislature
through the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act Section 177, categorically
describes that the fine for first offence is Rs 100 and Rs 300 for subsequent
offence.
Law is trite
Law
is trite that, the Rule 1389(iii) of Central Motor Vehicle rules 1989 make it
mandatory to wear seat belts for all those who travel in car; even if it is
rear sears, facing front. The good intention and industrious activities to curb
Motor Accidents in Kerala by strict implementation of various provisions of
Motor Vehicle Act in Kerala need to be appreciated.
But
the directive to register cases for not using seat belts are not legally
sustainable. Reasons are hyper technical. For those who plead guilty, can pay
fine and go; well and good. But those who are not willing to pay fine by
pleading guilty; should have been charged properly. There arises the hyper
technical issue of bar under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
The
offences related to violation of the Rule 138(iii) of Central Motor Vehicle
rules 1989 are not cognizable in nature. It means, the police/motor vehicle
officials cannot register a case; instead they can only seek sanction from the
magistrate to proceed with the case. This
aspect is discussed by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Mahboob vs. State of
Kerala (2011 2 KHC 261). It was categorically held that even the offences
U/Sec. 184, 185 etc of that the Motor Vehicle Act are non cognizable in
nature. Obviously either the transport officials or the police
officials are not having any power to register a case or to start investigation
coming under the violation of any of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act
including 138(iii) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules (wearing Seat belt) with
reference to the provisions in Chapter 12 of the Cr.P.C especially Sec. 155(2)
Admittedly the Motor vehicle inspector
acting Under Section 213(iii) exercise the powers of police which are
exercisable by police under the Motor Vehicles Act. No officer empowered under Motor Vehicle Act
is having jurisdiction to register a case to start an investigation in respect
of violation of provision in rules in 138(iii) of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules 1989. Therefore the option
available is to apply sanction for an order from the concerned Magistrate Court
to register the said case and the file charge.
Be that it so, how the officials can
give ultimatum through the media that, all those who are not wearing seat belts
will be charged with cases?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)