Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Barkya Tiku - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 35 of 1915
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Bom49(1); (1915)17BOMLR607; 30Ind.Cas.133
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBarkya Tiku
Excerpt:
bombay public conveyances act (bom. act vi of 1863), sections 2, 9-conveyance licensed for labour but use a for passengers-liability.;a person who has licensed his conveyance for labour but uses it as a conveyance for passengers, is guilty of an offence under section 2 of the bombay public conveyances act, 1863. - - he is clearly guilty of an offence under section 2. 3. therefore, we cannot agree with the district magistrate who recommends that the conviction be quashed and the accused acquitted......public conveyance without having a license in force for the same, and in the case of a license to carry passengers there is to be painted or branded on such part of the conveyance as may be directed a number corresponding with that of the license granted to such conveyance, together, in the case of a land conveyance licensed to carry passengers, with the number of passengers that it is licensed to carry. any person keeping or letting for hire any public conveyance without such a license as aforesaid will be liable, on conviction before a magistrate, to a penalty. the accused in this case was keeping or letting for hire a public conveyance for carrying passengers without the requisite license. he is clearly guilty of an offence under section 2.3. therefore, we cannot agree with the.....
Judgment:

Macleod, J.

1. This is a reference from the District Magistrate of Thana in the case of Imperator v. Barkya Tiku Bhandari who was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Bassein on the 3rd of February 1915 and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2 under Section 2 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act (Bom. Act VI of 1863).

2. It appears that the accused had carried passengers in his cart, which was licensed only for labour, from Virar to Agashi. The District Magistrate is of opinion that because under Section 9 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act the Superintendent of Police may, in his discretion, suspend or revoke the license if a conveyance is used for passengers when licensed only for labour, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 2. But under Section 2 no person shall keep or let for hire any public conveyance without having a license in force for the same, and in the case of a license to carry passengers there is to be painted or branded on such part of the conveyance as may be directed a number corresponding with that of the license granted to such conveyance, together, in the case of a land conveyance licensed to carry passengers, with the number of passengers that it is licensed to carry. Any person keeping or letting for hire any public conveyance without such a license as aforesaid will be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty. The accused in this case was keeping or letting for hire a public conveyance for carrying passengers without the requisite license. He is clearly guilty of an offence under Section 2.

3. Therefore, we cannot agree with the District Magistrate who recommends that the conviction be quashed and the accused acquitted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //