Statutory record carriage and submission obligations justified interception, compounding, and enforcement action for non-possession.

Where a goods vehicle operator is required to carry prescribed records and submit them within the prescribed time, possession of those records is integral to compliance and the obligations operate concurrently. Non-possession at interception amounts to a contravention of the Act, attracting the penal and compounding provisions. On that construction, check-post officers were competent to intercept the vehicle, require production of the statutory documents, and levy compounding fee. The writ petition therefore failed and the impugned order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the check-post officers had jurisdiction to intercept the goods vehicle and demand the statutory records, and whether the consequent levy and collection of compounding fee under the Act were valid.

Analysis: Section 44 required the owner or person in charge of the goods vehicle to carry the prescribed records and submit them within the prescribed time. The requirement of possession preceded and was integral to submission, and the conjunction used in the provision made both obligations concurrent and mandatory. Failure to carry the documents amounted to a contravention of the Act and attracted section 45(2)(d), while section 46 permitted composition of the offence. On that construction, the officials were competent to intercept the vehicle, require production of the documents, and proceed to compound the offence.

Conclusion: The interception, demand for documents, and levy of compounding fee were within jurisdiction and lawful.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory provision requires both carriage and later submission of prescribed documents, non-possession at interception constitutes a contravention attracting penal and compounding provisions, and the enforcement officers may act on that default within their jurisdiction.

---