Skip to content


State Vs. Ismail Alisaheb Awate - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Criminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 14 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1966Bom119; (1965)67BOMLR569; 1966CriLJ399; ILR1966Bom72
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 2(25), 2(33), 42, 42(1), 123 and 132
AppellantState
Respondentismail Alisaheb Awate
Advocates:V.S. Deshpande, Asst. Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
..............recommending that the conviction of the accused under s. 123 of read with s. 42 (1) of the motor vehicles act and sentence of fine imposed upon him be set aside.(2) the accused was in charge of the private of motor car bearing no. bye 2717. on 30-8-1963 has was driving it from sholapur to pandharpur with passengers on hire. there were eight passengers in the motor car at the time and the evidence shoed that they were charged rs. 2.20 per head per trip. he was therefore prosecuted under s. 123 of read with 42 (1) of the motor vehicles act. the learned trial additional session judge recommends that this conviction of the sentence of bet set aside.(3) two points were urged before the learned trial magistrate, one was that is was only the owner of the vehicle who was liable only the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This reference is made by the II Additional session of Judge, sholapur, recommending that the conviction of the accused under S. 123 of read with S. 42 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act and sentence of fine imposed upon him be set aside.

(2) The accused was in charge of the private of motor car bearing No. BYE 2717. On 30-8-1963 has was driving it from Sholapur to pandharpur with passengers on hire. There were eight passengers in the motor car at the time and the evidence shoed that they were charged Rs. 2.20 per head per trip. He was therefore prosecuted under S. 123 of read with 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned trial additional session judge recommends that this conviction of the sentence of bet set aside.

(3) Two points were urged before the learned trial Magistrate, one was that is was only the owner of the vehicle who was liable only the and not the driver, and secondly in the any event of car, no motor car in the question was the a private of car on permits would be necessary was it was not transport of vehicle and therefore no offense of was committed under s. 42 and 123 of read together. Both these contentions were negative by he learned Magistrate. The accused went in the revision o the session of court which the heard by the II Additional Sessions judge. He accepted relying upon the decision of the Mysore High court upon Jayaram v. State of Mysore [1962] 2 Cri LJ 707. Which case indeed is in favour of the accused. The learned additional of which sessions of judge did not accept the first contentions of which was urged in support of the revisional of application. I agree that there is no substances is the first contention.

(4) As to the second contention, it is not enough to read merely one definition of clauses in the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 42 is as follows:

'(1) No owner of a transport vehicle shall use of the permit the use of the vehicle of the public save in accordance of the with the conditions of a permits granted or countersigned by the commission authorising the use of the vehicles in that places in the manner in which he vehicle of in being used'

Ordinarily in common parlance a transport vehicle in the which transports either goods of the passenger of from on place to another. But then the Act has itself framed definitions which apply unless there is framed context to the contrary. The relevant definitions are those to 'Light motor Vehicle' 'Motor Cab', 'Motor car' 'Public service vehicle ' and means transports of vehicle of omnibus of registered laden weight of which the motor car contractor the unladen weight of which does not exceed, 3, 000 kilograms. 'Motor Cab' means any motor vehicle construed, adapted, or used to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for the hire or reward. 'Motor car' means any motor vehicle and other than a transport vehicle omnibus, road -roller tractor motor, cycle, or invalid carriage. 'Public service vehicle' means any motor vehicle used or adapted t o the use the carriage passengers for hire or reward, the and included a motor and cart, contract, carriages and stage , carriage. 'Transport vehicle' means of the public service vehicle or a good vehicles.

(5) In order to find out the meaning of the words ' transport vehicle' contained in section 42 one must go to the definition of ' public service vehicle' contained in clause 25 of S.2 which is stated as above . It must be noticed by definition in order that a motor vehicle should become a ' public service vehicle' , it need not be habitually used nor is it required that it should be specially adapted for the purpose ; even if the vehicle is used for that purpose it becomes a public service vehicle for the time being . The absence of the word ' habitual' must suggest that for the particular moment it is being used for carrying passengers on hire or reward then the vehicle becomes public service vehicle . In connection with S.42 one must also have regard to the other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before concluding that a private car can without any permit or license for the purpose carry passengers . The Act contains several provisions with regard to transport vehicles and the rules framed thereunder The Act by the Government contain elaborate provisions for different kind of licenses and permits for different kinds of vehicles. There are stringent restrictions for the drivers of passenger vehicles intended for the public purpose such as a motor cabs and transport buses in interest of public safety and convenience. It is in the general interest of the public that such distinction should have been made between different kinds of vehicles. In order to give effect to the intention of the framers of the Act. It is impossible to qualify in any way of the words ' transport vehicle' and ' public service vehicle' by words which are not to be found in the statute . Once the court comes to the conclusion that a private motor car was being used for carrying passengers for rewards or hire, it becomes a public service vehicle within the meaning of the clause 33 of S. 2 of the Act. Admittedly the accused had no license for plying the same in that manner and he would therefore fall within the mischief of s.42 read with S. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

(6) In re Manager , Indian Express ILR (1946) Mad 222 : AIR 1945 Mad 440 a similar construction was placed on these clauses by the Madras High Court . In that case the accused who was the Manager of the Indian Express carried bundles of newspapers from the office of the Indian Express to the Railway Station on two occasions and having regard to the definition of the goods vehicles in clause 2 (8) it was held that even if the goods were carried in a private motor car only on two occasions , it was ' goods vehicle' within the meaning of the clause and therefore it contravened the provisions of S. 42(1) of the Act.

(7) Having regard to what is stated above , it is impossible with great deference to agree with the decision of the Mysore High Court .

(8) In the result the reference cannot be accepted . I therefore reject the same.

(9) LI/DHZ

(10) Reference rejected .


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