Compounding fee under the Motor Vehicles Act upheld where delegation stayed within statutory limits and was not arbitrary.

The Supreme Court held that the State Government could prescribe an enhanced compounding fee for Motor Vehicles Act offences under Section 200, because the delegation was controlled by the Act and the amount could not exceed the penalty contemplated by Section 194. Compounding was treated as a voluntary available to the accused, not a mandatory levy, and the statutory scheme provided sufficient guidance to prevent arbitrariness. The challenge on the ground of excess delegation and Article 14 failed, and the prescription of the compounding fee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhanced compounding fee prescribed by the State Government for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was beyond the power conferred by Section 200 and violative of Article 14.

Analysis: Section 194 provides the penal sanction and fixes the upper limit of punishment for the relevant offences, while Section 200 empowers compounding by the authorised officer for an amount specified by the State Government. The statutory scheme provides sufficient guidance to the delegate because the compounding amount cannot exceed the penalty contemplated by the penal provision. Compounding is voluntary, depends on the accused's willingness, and does not operate as a mandatory levy in every case. The prescription of a compounding fee within the outer limit fixed by the Act is therefore neither arbitrary nor irrational, and the delegation is controlled by the statute.

Conclusion: The challenge to the compounding fee failed; the prescription was within the power under Section 200 and was not violative of Article 14. The petition was dismissed.

---