Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

Anesh & Avinesh Transport Pte Ltd v Land Transport Authority [2022] FJMC 41; Traffic Case 29 of 2020 (13 April 2022)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SIGATOKA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Traffic Case Number 29/20

Anesh & Avinesh Transport Pte Ltd –v- Land Transport Authority

For the Applicant: Absent

For the Respondent: Mr. Turamanu

RULING ON SEEKING DISMISSAL UNDER SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT

Charge

1. On the 12^th March 2020, the Applicant was issued with Traffic Infringement Notice (TIN) and charged with the offence of Permitting Another Person to Drive Motor Vehicle with Excess Permissible Gross Weight Load contrary to Regulation 80(9)(d), 87(1)(a) and 122 of the Land Transport (Vehicle Registration and Construction) Regulation 2000.

Background

2. The Applicant disputed the TIN on 27^th August 2020 by way of Notice.

3. The Applicant appeared on the first call date on 1^st September 2020 and has never appeared ever since then.
4. On 23^rd November 2021, the Respondent confirmed that the Applicant paid the subject TIN and seeks for the matter to be dismissed under Section 74(2) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
   

Analysis

5. Section 74 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides:

(1) Where proceedings are instituted by means of —

(a) the service upon a person of a fixed penalty notice (in this section referred to as "the notice"); or

(b) the affixing to a motor vehicle, of a fixed penalty notice —

the provisions of this section apply in relation to the charge set out in the notice (in this section referred to as "the charge").

(2) Where payment of the fixed penalty that is applicable in relation to the charge (in this section referred to as "the fixed penalty") is made in accordance with the instructions set out in the notice not later than 14 days after the date of the notice —

(a) the proceedings instituted by the notice shall be deemed to have been dismissed; and

(b) it shall not be lawful for any person to be convicted of the offence as charged in the notice.

(3) Subject to sub-section (4), where payment of the fixed penalty is not made as mentioned in sub-section (2), the notice shall be regarded for all purposes as a summons issued under the provisions of this Decree.

(4) A Court shall not proceed with the hearing of proceedings instituted by the affixing of a fixed penalty notice to a motor vehicle unless a signed copy of the notice has been served upon the owner of that motor vehicle before the date of the hearing.

(emphasis added)

6. The Respondent’s positon is that given that the Applicant has paid the TIN, the matter should be dismissed.
   
7. However, after considering the highlighted portion of the law, it is apparent that Section 74 (2)(a) is only applicable to those individuals who have paid their TINS within 14 days from the day of the Notice, which is the, TIN.
8. In this case, the Applicant paid their TIN more than a year after the day of the Notice.
   

9. Therefore, I hereby refuse the application for dismissal.

10. So ordered.

---------------------
J. Daurewa
Resident Magistrate

13^th April 2022