Emperor Vs. Pandu Ramji

criminal procedure code (art v of 1898), section 562 (1) (a)-conviction-release with admonition-offence under the indian penal code-offeree under motor vehicles act (viii of 1914) not contemplated-motor vehicle rule 35(k).;the provisions of section 562 (1) (a) of the criminal procedure code 1898, apply only to certain specified offences punishable under the indian penal code; they have no application to offences punishable under other acts, eg., the motor vehicles act, 1914. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5) such breach is not so fatal as to warrant quashing the entire order. income tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--order under s. 132(5)--validity of--seized assets handed over the commissionerincome tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--reason to believe--commissioner considering extensive information and anonymous petitions and undertaking detailed scrutiny. income tax act 1961 s.132marten, j.1. we agree with the letter of reference of the district magistrate of east khandesh to the effect that the accused in these two cases could not properly be admonished under section 562 (1) (a) of the criminal procedure code. the attention of magistrates should be drawn to the fact that the sub-section only applies to a certain limited class of eases such as theft and so on under the indian penal code. consequently it does not apply to an offence under a totally different act such as the present, the motor vehicles act of 1914. the words of the sub-section are plain, and effect must be given to them 'whether the sub-section should not be extended so as to cover legs serious offences than those at present mentioned is a matter for the legislature and not for ourselves. if a magistrate wishes to pass a nominal sentence there are other means of doing it than the one the trial magistrate has adopted in the present case.2. the district magistrate states that this offence of overcrowding taxis has become too prevalent, but we think that that fact does not appear from the papers before us, nor was it a point actually taken at the trial, if in any case a deterrent sentence is required, the prosecuting counsel should, i think, in general state this to the trial magistrate at the hearing.3. under the circumstances and as both these taxi drivers are first offenders we will in each case pass a sentence of a fine of five rupees and set aside the order of the second class magistrate, edlabad.madgaikar, jj.4. i agree.