Section 209 of MVA : Section 209: Restriction On Conviction

Explanation using Example

Imagine a driver named Rohit is caught speeding on a highway. The speed limit is 80 km/h, but he is driving at 100 km/h. This is an offence under section 183 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which relates to exceeding the speed limit. At the time of the offence, the traffic officer stops Rohit and warns him that his speeding could lead to prosecution. This warning fulfills the requirement of clause (a) of Section 209.

If Rohit had not been stopped and warned, the traffic department would need to send him a notice within fourteen days of the offence, detailing the nature of his speeding violation, as well as the time and place it occurred. This notice could be sent to Rohit directly or to the registered owner of the vehicle if someone else owns the car he was driving. Should this notice be served or sent by registered post within the stipulated time, it would satisfy clause (b).

Alternatively, if neither a warning nor a notice is given, a summons must be served to Rohit within twenty-eight days of the offence for him to be legally prosecuted, as per clause (c).

However, if the court finds that the traffic department could not reasonably ascertain Rohit's or the vehicle owner's details in time, or if Rohit's own conduct caused the delay in serving notice or summons, the court may proceed with the conviction despite these requirements not being met, as per the provisos in Section 209.