ORDER
M.B. Sharma, J.
1. This is a miscellaneous petition and though it raise’s a simple question of law which emerged from the reading of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act), but for the guidance of the court it is necessary to refer to the provisions of law as to how the case of the present nature should be dealt with.
2. A complaint was filed by incharge traffic police Jaipur City in the court of learned Magistrate that on May 17, 1985 at about 7.25 a.m., the petitioner brought his vehicle during the prohibited hours on the prohibito road. The learned Magistrate on beaforesa complaint issued a summon,accused to put his appearance and on Dec. 12, 1986 the accused had not put in appearance and the advocate filed an application under Section 130 of the Act and pleaded guilty of the offence but the learned Magistrate observing that earlier also a similar application had been dismissed, dismissed the application and ordered that as already ordered, the accused petitioner should be summoned. The case was adjourned to Jan. 17, 1987, for the presence of the accused-petitioner.
3. An offence under Section 74/124 of the Act is one which can be and should be dealt with under Section 130 of the Act. Under Section 74 of the Act, the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge may by notification in the official gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicle or of any specified class of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under Section 75 at suitable places. The contravention of Section 74 of the Act is punishable under Section 124 of the Act and whosoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 72 or of the conditions prescribed under that Section, or in contravention of any prohibition or, restriction imposed under Section 72 or Section 74 shall be punishable for a first offence with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees and for a second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
4. Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act provides that the court taking cognizance of an offence under the Act (i) may, if the offence is an offence punishable with imprisonment under the Act and (ii) shall in any other case, state upon the summons to be served on the. accused person that (a) he may appear by pleader and not in person or (b) may by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge plead guilty to the charge by registered letter and remit to the court such sum (not exceeding the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence) as the court may specify. Nothing in that sub-section shall apply to any offence specified in part A of the fifth Schedule. It will therefore be clear that the court has no option in a case which is not punishable with imprisonment but to state upon the summons to be served on the accused person that he appear by pleader and not in person on the specified date or plead guilty to the charge by registered letter and remit to the court such sum not exceeding the maximum fine as the court may specify. The present case being under Section 74 of the Act being the first offence, was punishable with fine only upto Rs. 200/-, and as such was not punishable with imprisonment under the Act. Therefore, the court was bound to state upon the summons that he may appear by pleader and not in person. The court instead of doing so could have also specified a date prior to hearing of charge so that the accused could plead guilty by a registered letter and remit the fine which the court could have imposed. Therefore, when the court issued summons for appearance of the accused petitioner and did not state upon the summons that he may appear through pleader there was violation of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act. Thus when the advocate for the accused petitioner appeared and submitted an application that he wants time to plead guilty to the charge, the learned Magistrate should not have insisted upon the presence of the accused petitioner. Section 130 of the Act has been brought on the statutory book to deal with minor cases. It is well known that there are thousands of cases of traffic contravention. The legislature thought proper that the accused may not appear in person and may plead guilty or prior to the hearing of the charge the court could intimate the accused that he may plead guilty by a registered letter and remit the amount of fine specified in the summons. The court in such cases should state upon the summons to be issued to the accused petitioner that he may appear through pleader and not in person. It will be better if in such cases recourse is taken to the provisions of Section 130(l)(b) of the Act calling upon the persons charged with the offence to plead guilty and remit the fine. It will lead to the general convenience as well as to the disposal of a large number of cases which are otherwise pending in the courts of the Magistrates.
5. Consequently, I allow this misc. petition and quash the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he ordered that the accused shall appear in person. The accused shall be free to appear through advocate and the case shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law.