1. Petitioner has been convicted Under Section 72. Clause (3) (b) read with Section 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on his plea of guilty for carrying on overload of 1120 lbs. in the lorry A. P. D, 835 driven by him on 11-3-1961 at 00.15 Hours on Basin Bridge Road.
2. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the Carry was found t0 weigh 23j280 lbs. As the permitted laden weight of the lorry is only 20,160 lbs., there was an overload of 1120 lbs. The learned advocate for the petitioner produced the permit in this Court to show that the registered leden weight hag (been increased to 23,437 lbs. and urged that his conviction Under Section 72, clause 3(b) read with S. .124, Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be sustained. Section 72. clause 3 (b) refers only to registered ladep weight specified In the certificate of registration. But Section 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for contravention of Section 72. Section 72, Clause (1) provides for limits of weight in respect of any vehicle plying in any area and route within the State. This is commonly referred to as the permitted laden weight. In the Madras State a ,G. D, has been passed, G. O. No. 1032, Home, dated 15-3-1947 restricting the permitted laden weight to 9 tons, in respect of all goods vehicles. Hence all goods vehicles carrying more than 9 tons are liable to be charged for overload though the registered laden weight may be more.
But the learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to Section 63 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act under which a Regional Transport Authority when counter-signing the permit issued by another State may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit, and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permi' was granted, and argued that in the absence of any such condition attached at the time of counter-signing, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for exceeding the said limit of 9 tons, so long as the weight is within the registered laden weight of the vehicle. the took time and produced the permit counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of Madras, it shows that the permit has been extended to routes in the State of Madras subject to the general conditions and restrictions imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities in whose areas the vehicle operates. The G. O. referred to above clearly operates in respect of goods vehicles in the State of Madras and the petitioner cannot exceed the permissible laden weight of 9 tons which is applicable to every goods vehicle.
3. The conviction should be Under Section 72, Clause (1) read with Section 124, Motor Vehicles Act, and not Section 725 Clause (3) (b) read with Section 124, Motor Vehicles Act. The convfctiqa is altered as stated above. The sentence of fine cannot be considered excessive. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence. The criminal revision case is dismissed.