Disjunctive statutory wording in Motor Vehicles summons procedure gives Magistrate discretion, not a duty to endorse both alternatives.

Section 130(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was construed as giving the Magistrate a choice between the alternatives stated in clauses (a) and (b) when issuing summons for offences outside Part A of the Fifth Schedule. Because the provision used the disjunctive "or", the court held that it did not compel endorsement of both alternatives. A mandatory reading would improperly turn "or" into "and" and would sit uneasily with the Act's scheme, which was aimed at a convenient procedure for minor infractions rather than avoiding more serious consequences through payment of a limited sum. The Magistrate therefore was not bound to endorse clause (b).

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate, when issuing summons for offences not specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was to endorse both alternatives under section 130(1), or had a discretion to endorse either alternative.

Analysis: Section 130(1) required a court taking cognizance of an offence under the Act to state upon the summons one of the alternatives mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). The provision used the disjunctive 'or', and nothing in its language compelled the court to endorse both alternatives. Reading the provision as mandatory in that sense would convert 'or' into 'and' and would also produce results inconsistent with the scheme of the Act, because the provision was intended to provide a convenient procedure for minor infractions and not to enable avoidance of more serious consequences by payment of a limited sum. The structure of the Act and the consequences under section 17 also supported a discretionary construction.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was not bound to make an endorsement in terms of section 130(1)(b), and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory text uses the disjunctive 'or' and the scheme of the enactment supports alternative procedural options, the provision is not to be read as imposing a mandatory duty to include every alternative.

---