https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173871 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). en-us Wed, 03 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:47:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173871 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). Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173871