TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1951 (9) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act in C. C. 602 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mangalore. After a full enquiry, the Magistrate discharged the accused driver holding that the accusation was groundless. This order was passed on 6-1-1951. 2. Meanwhile, the Regional Transport Officer called upon the petitioner by a communication dated 3-11-1950 to show cause why his permit should not be cancelled or suspended as the lorry was engaged in smuggling food grains. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the officer passed an order on 3-3-1951 suspending the permit for a period of three months from 1-4-1951 to 1-7-1951. Though the order of the Magi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Authority in ignoring the judgment of a criminal Court may be regrettable, it did not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There was nothing to compel the tribunal to accept the judgment, though it was not proper for a quasi judicial tribunal to ignore the well considered judgments of courts, whether civil or criminal, without giving adequate reasons. After hearing arguments for some time, the learned Judge felt a doubt as to whether his prior view was correct. He was impressed by the other aspect, namely, that when a criminal court acquitted or discharged the driver of a public carriage on the ground that he did not commit an offence, and if the Regional Transport Authority had suspended the permit in respect of that vehicle on the bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. A similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of which one of us was a member in--'C. M. P. No. 3367 of 1948 (Mad)'. No doubt that case arose under the provisions of the Madras Rationing Order, but the principle of that decision applies to the facts of this case also. In that case the petitioner was an authorised dealer in rice. He was charged in the criminal court for having sold 30 measures to a person to whom he was not entitled to sell. The Rationing Officer on the same ground purported to cancel the authorisation in his favour. The criminal case had not been disposed of when the Rationing Officer passed an order cancelling the authorisation, but he was aware that the case was pendi....