http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: P. RATNAKAR RAO & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   624        1996 SCALE  (5)386

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This special  leave petition  arises from  the judgment and order  of the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court dated December 29, 1995  made  in  Writ  Petition  No.23323  of  1995.  The petitioners are  the owners of goods motor vehicles and were plying the same on the basis of pucca national/State permits issued by  the appropriate  transport authorities. When they challenged the  validity of  GOMS No.54 dated March 31, 1995 issued by the Department of Transport [Roads and Buildings] enhancing  the  compounding  fee  from  Rs.10  per  k.g.  to Rs.100/- per  k.g. as  being violative of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1988  [for  short,  the  "Act"]  and  arbitrary  being violating Article 14 of the Constitution, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment upheld the said GOMS.      Section 194  of the  Act  enacts  penal  sanctions  for driving a vehicle in violation of Sections 113 to 115 of the Act with  a minimum fine of Rs.2,000/- and additional amount of Rs.  1,000/- per  tonne  of  excess  load  together  with liability to pay charges for off loading of the excess load. Sub-section [2]  thereof imposes  penalty on  the driver who refuses to  stop and  submit the  vehicle to  weighing after being directed  to do  so by  the authorized officer in that behalf under  Section 114  or refuses to remove or causes to remove the  load or  part of  it, prior to weightment in the form of fine to the extent of Rs.3,000/-. Section 200 of the Act empowers the authorized officer to compound the offences punishable under  the provisions  enumerated in  sub-section [1] thereof.  Section 194  is one  of the provisions for the offence of  which the  officer is empowered either before or after the institution of the proceedings for prosecution, to compound such  an offence  for  such  amount  as  the  State Government may  by  notification  in  the  official  Gazette specify in this behalf. Under sub-section [2] thereof, after compounding the  offence the  accused in  custody  shall  be discharged and  the proceedings  shall be dropped in respect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of such an offence.      The  contention   raised  before  the  High  Court  and repeated before  us by  Shri Rajeev  Dhavan, learned  senior counsel for  the petitioners is that the discretion given in Section 200  [1] of  the Act  is unguided,  uncanalised  and arbitrary. Until  an accused is convicted under Section 194, the right  to levy  penalty thereunder would not arise. When discretion is  given to  the court  for compounding  of  the offence for  the amount  mentioned  under  Section  200,  it cannot  be   stratified  by   specified  amount.  It  would, therefore, be  clear that the exercise of power to prescribe maximum  rates  for  compounding  the  offence  is  illegal, arbitrary and  violative of  Article 14 of the Constitution. We find  no  force  in  the  contention.  For  violation  of Sections 113  to 115, Section 194 accords penal sanction and on conviction  for violation  thereof, the Section sanctions punishment with  fine as  has been  enumerated hereinbefore. Section would  give guidance  to the  State Government  as a delegate  under  the  statute  to  specify  the  amount  for compounding the offences enumerated under sub-section [1] of Section 200. It is not mandatory that the authorized officer would always  compound the  offence. It  is conditional upon the  willingness   of  the  accused  to  have  the  offences compounded. It  may also  be done  before the institution of the prosecution  case. In  the  event  of  the  petitioner’s willing to  have  the  offence  compounded,  the  authorized officer gets  jurisdiction and  authority  to  compound  the offence and  call upon  the accused  to  pay  the  same.  On compliance thereof,  the proceedings, if already instituted, would  be   closed  or   no  further  proceedings  shall  be initiated. It  is a matter of volition or willingness on the part of  the accused  either to  accept compounding  of  the offence or to face the prosecution in the appropriate court. As regards  canalization and  prescription of  the amount of fine for  the offences  committed Section 194, the penal and charging section  prescribes the  maximum outer limit within which  the   compounding  fee   would  be   prescribed.  The discretion exercised by the delegated legislation, i.e., the executive is  controlled by the specification in the Act. It is not  necessary that Section 200 itself should contain the details in  that behalf. So long as the compounding fee does not exceed  the fine  prescribed by  penal section, the same cannot be  declared to be either exorbitant or irrational or bereft of guidance.      It would,  therefore, be clear that the Government as a delegate, did  not exceed its power under Section 200 of the Act in  prescribing the  compounding  fee  for  the  offence punishable under Section 194 of the Act.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.