Skip to content


King-emperor Vs. Sita Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All478; 101Ind.Cas.668
AppellantKing-emperor
RespondentSita Ram
Excerpt:
- - the conviction, however, was for the reason stated bad in law and is hereby set aside......rule 22 must be intended. the rule runs:the issue of a license to drive motor vehicles in the united provinces shall not be necessary in the case of a person duly licensed to drive in any other province: provided that such person shall produce his license when so required by any magistrate or police officer in the united provinces.3. it appears that the superintendent of police informed the district magistrate that the accused was duly licensed in the united provinces. he was not, therefore, a person licensed to drive in another province and not licensed in the united provinces and it is only to such a person that rule 22 applies. the only provision of law applicable to a driver with a license to drive in the united provinces is section 8 of the motor vehicles act (8 of 1914) which.....
Judgment:

Ashworth, J.

1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Etawah submitted through the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri.

2. A Magistrate issued a notice to the driver of a motor vehicle to produce his license and fined him Rs. 15 for not doing so. The District Magistrate is of the opinion that the notice was illegal as it was not delivered by the Magistrate to the driver on the road, but was an order requiring the driver to attend the Magistrate's house or Court with his license. The Magistrate pleads that the order was permissible under Rule 21 of the Motor Rules. This rule has nothing to do with the matter and the following Rule 22 must be intended. The rule runs:

The issue of a license to drive motor vehicles in the United Provinces shall not be necessary in the case of a person duly licensed to drive in any other province: provided that such person shall produce his license when so required by any Magistrate or police officer in the United Provinces.

3. It appears that the Superintendent of Police informed the District Magistrate that the accused was duly licensed in the United Provinces. He was not, therefore, a person licensed to drive in another province and not licensed in the United Provinces and it is only to such a person that Rule 22 applies. The only provision of law applicable to a driver with a license to drive in the United Provinces is Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act (8 of 1914) which required a driver to produce his license upon demand by any police officer. No person is a driver within the meaning of this Section 8 unless driving. In this case the accused was neither a driver nor called on by a police officer to produce his license. If Rule 22 had been applicable, I am not prepared to hold that demand by the Magistrate could only be made from a person actually driving. The rule speaks of a person and not a driver. The conviction, however, was for the reason stated bad in law and is hereby set aside. The fine if paid will be returned.

4. There is another reference re Summary Trial 283 of 1924, but this reference does not appear to have been made by the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge has not sent the judgment impugned nor stated the ground of his reference and so no order on this other reference is passed.


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