N.S. Ramaswami, J.
1. In each of these two cases, the conductor of the bus concerned has been convicted for ah offence under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 49-YY (i) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.
2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners in both the cases first proceeded oh the assumption that Rule 49-YY (i) of the said rules has since been abrogated after the amendment of the Act in the year 1969. In Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the words ' to the maximum number of passengers and maximum Weight of luggage that may be carried AS the Vehicle ' have been inserted by the Amending Act LVI of 1969, Which Came into force on 27th March, 1970. The learned Counsel first proceeded on the basis that after the above said amendment of Section 123 of the Act, Rule 49-YY (i) stood abrogated. But that is not based on facts. The rule is still in force and the learned Counsel ultimately conceded that his assumption has no basis.
3. The learned Counsel took other points in the revision petitions. The first is that when Section 123 of the Act specifically provides for punishing the conductor for overloading in contravention of the conditions of the permit, Section 112, which is in the nature of a residuary provision, would not apply. But, I think the learned Counsel is not correct in his contention. It is seen that Rule 49-YY deals with the conductor of a motor vehicle. Section 123 makes a driver of a motor vehicle or a person who causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the conditions of the permit punishable. That section does not seem to apply to the conductor of a motor vehicle. Even assuming that it does, since Rule 49-YY is there in the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, and it specifically says that the conductor of a public service vehicle shall not do certain things and if he does Section 112 of the Act provides for punishment, it is not right to contend that in the presence of Section 123 of the Act as amended in 1969, the conductor cannot be punished under Section 112 of the Act read with Rule 49-YY (i) of the Rules. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel on this first point.
4. The second point is also not available to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. Under Section 130 of the Act, as amended by the Amending Act LVI of 1969, in a case where the punishment is one of fine, the summons to be served on the accused shall say that he may appear by pleader and not in person, or he may, by a specified date, prior to the hearing of the charge, plead guilty to the same by a registered letter and remit to the Court the fine amount specified in the summons. The learned Counsel says that in the present cases, the summons served on the revision petitioners were not in conformity with the abovesaid provisions contained in Section 130 of the Act. But the summons themselves have not been produced and there is nothing to show that the summons were really not in conformity with the above-said provision. Therefore, this contention also fails.
* * * *
5. Both the revision petitions are dismissed.