Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Alibhai Miabhai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR875; 17Ind.Cas.531
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAlibhai Miabhai
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
public conveyances act (bombay act vi of 1863), sea. 18-licensed driven -list of fares-omission to carry the list-demand for it by police officer.;the driver of a public conveyance was unable to produce the list of fares, when required to do so by a police officer. be was, thereupon, proceeded against under section 18 of the public conveyances act, 1863, but was acquitted by the magistrate.;upholding the order of acquittal, that the penalty under section 18 of the public conveyances act, 1863, can be imposed only when the list is not produced on demand by the hirer or passenger. - .....that the magistrate has come to the right conclusion with regard to the construction of section 18 of the public conveyances act (vi of 1863).2. we think the object of the section was to provide that the licensee or driver of a public conveyance shall have a clean list of fares with him in order that he may be in a position on demand to produce the same for the benefit of the hirer or passenger. the provisions of the section are framed solely for the benefit of the hirer or the passenger, and it is when the list is not produced on demand by the hirer or passenger that the penalty can be imposed.3. the case for the prosecution cannot be put higher than this that the section is capable of two constructions. in a case of such ambiguity the court ought to lean in favour of the.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the Magistrate has come to the right conclusion with regard to the construction of Section 18 of the Public Conveyances Act (VI of 1863).

2. We think the object of the section was to provide that the licensee or driver of a public conveyance shall have a clean list of fares with him in order that he may be in a position on demand to produce the same for the benefit of the hirer or passenger. The provisions of the section are framed solely for the benefit of the hirer or the passenger, and it is when the list is not produced on demand by the hirer or passenger that the penalty can be imposed.

3. The case for the prosecution cannot be put higher than this that the section is capable of two constructions. In a case of such ambiguity the Court ought to lean in favour of the accused.

4. We dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of acquittal.


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