Skip to content


In Re: Govindarajulu Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad352; (1941)1MLJ470
AppellantIn Re: Govindarajulu Naidu
Excerpt:
- orderlakshmana rao, j.1. the petitioner is the registered owner of a motor lorry for private use and he is alleged to have suffered his driver to carry goods of another person for hire. this would unquestionably be an offence under rule 138 of the motor vehicle rules and the offence would be punishable under section 112 of the motor vehicles act if no other penalty is provided for it. the power conferred on the transport authority to suspend the permit in such cases cannot be regarded or treated as a penalty for the offence, and the prosecution of the petitioner under section 112 of the motor vehicles act is not illegal. there is therefore no ground for quashing the proceedings and the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor lorry for private use and he is alleged to have suffered his driver to carry goods of another person for hire. This would unquestionably be an offence under Rule 138 of the Motor Vehicle Rules and the offence would be punishable under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act if no other penalty is provided for it. The power conferred on the transport authority to suspend the permit in such cases cannot be regarded or treated as a penalty for the offence, and the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not illegal. There is therefore no ground for quashing the proceedings and the petition is dismissed.


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