p. 1 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27229 of 2025 R. Krishna Sethi …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Choudhury Bingyansis Mohapatra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC Mr. Pravakar Behera, SC (for Transport Department) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 24.09.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “Therefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased enough to admit this writ petition, issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the VCRs under Annexure- 2 Series issued/drawn against the Vehicle of the Petitioner bearing Registration No.OD-13-K-4731 shall be transmitted to the court of learned J.M.F.C. (Transport), p. 2 p. 2 Cuttack for disposal of the same as per law. And if the opposite parties do not show cause of show insufficient cause the rule may be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ directing the O.P. No.2 transmit/forward all the VCRs under Annexure-2 Series to the court of learned J.M.F.C.(Transport), Cuttack within a stipulated time. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 15.01.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.1500 of 2004 (Anjana Babulal Darabad vrs. Commissioner, S.T.A. & Ors.) and batch of Writ Petitions. Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Anjana Babulal (supra). 5. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Anjana Babulal (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 15.01.2014. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows: “ xxx xxx xxx v) Pending such approval, direction is hereby given to the OMVD Officers issuing the VCR to direct the driver/owner/person in possession and control of motor vehicle either compound the offence on payment of p. 3 p. 3 prescribed fine offline/online or to appear before the STA/RTA and produce the demanded documents for disposal of VCR within fifteen days, failing which the VCR issuing officer will submit prosecution report before the court having jurisdiction, namely, Transport Magistrate/J.M.F.C./ S.D.J.M. for adjudication of the VCR within fifteen days from the date on which compounded fine was to be paid. The Transport Magistrate/ JMFC/SDJM may allow compounding of the offences, strictly in conformity with the Gazattee Notification No. No.1151 dated 29.09.1995. As prescribed under Rule 139 of C.M.V. Rules, 1989, the owners/driver/conductor may also send Xerox coy of R.C./I.C./Permit/D.L. and any other relevant documents duly attested by Police Officer or any other officer to the officer who demanded the documents by registered post within fifteen days from the date of issue of VCR. xx x xx x x ” 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department submits that most of the VCRs under Annexure-2 Series are drawn up against the vehicle are more than one year before. As per Section 514 of the BNSS, 2023, there is bar for taking cognizance of the offence where the imprisonment is provided not exceeding one year. Hence, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence under the e-challan. 7. In view of the above, let the Petitioner shall approach the concerned Transport Authority to compound the offence. In such p. 4 p. 4 event, the Authority shall do the needful to consider the same as per law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra