Skip to content


Ganapathi Hedge and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad969
AppellantGanapathi Hedge and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- jackson, j.1. the accused was prosecuted for not registering annually his motor vehicle as required by rule 30 (1) of the madras motor vehicles rules 1923. the sub-magistrate acquitted him holding that annually means once some time in 1926, once some time in 1927, and so on. i am not prepared to say that this was wrong. if the time was strictly to run for twelve months it would have been said so--vide form g condition 1.2. accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. The accused was prosecuted for not registering annually his motor vehicle as required by Rule 30 (1) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1923. The Sub-Magistrate acquitted him holding that annually means once some time in 1926, once some time in 1927, and so on. I am not prepared to say that this was wrong. If the time was strictly to run for twelve months it would have been said so--vide form G condition 1.

2. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.


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