1951 (9) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... about 14-4-1950, the lorry was detained on suspicion that it contained smuggled rice. The driver of the lorry was subsequently charged by the police under section 186 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 submitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before Subba Rao J. On similar facts he had expressed the view in C. M. P. No. 8482 of 1950 (Mad) that though the attitude of a quasi judicial tribunal like the Transport 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffences, it is desirable that the findings and orders of the criminal courts should be treated as conclusive in proceedings before quasi judicial tribunals like the Transport 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. 5. The Rationing Officer on the same ground purported to cancel the author....