S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, C.J.
1. The petitioners have in both the case's entitled above been convicted Under Section 94 of the M.V. Act for not having renewed the Policv of insurance as required by the Act.
2. It appears that the accused admitted before the trial court that the previous insurance had expired on 31-3-71 and an application for renewal of the same was made and an order for renewing the policv was made on 6-4-71, renewing the insurance with effect from 1-4-71. The courts below were of the opinion that as the vehicles remained ' uninsured from 31-3-71 to 6-4-71. the offence was technically complete and the petitioners had to be convicted. I ami however, unable to agree with this view. The courts must take a reasonable view of the matter. It is manifest that after the expirv of the insurance policv or the license the owner of the vehicle has to apply for renewal which takes a lew days and if the renewal is made retrospectively then in the eve of law the license or the insurance, as the case may be. becomes effective from the date from which it is renewed.
3. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge has found that the insurance policy produced before him was renewed on 6-4-71 but with effect from 1-4-71, Thus the legal effect of the renewal was that the insurance policy stood renewed from 1-4-71 and therefore the petitioners had committed no offence because the insurance policv was in order and the petitioners therefore did not violate Section 94 of the M.V. Act.
4. The Advocate General suggested that since the renewal was made on 6-4-71, technically the offence had been committed. This contention is wholly untenable. The court has to see the evidence as it stands and not as the court should imagine it to be. The document produced by the petitioners clearly shows that the insurance policy had been renewed from 1-4-71. The position in law therefore was that the petitioners were in possession of a legal document which had renewed their license with effect from 1-4-71. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that no application for renewal is entertained before the expirv of the insurance or the license, and before the final renewal is made it takes a few days and if this period is covered by the renewed policv. then the provisions of Section 94 are substantially complied with and no offence would be committed by the petitioners.
5. For these reasons I am clearly of the opinion that the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners in both the cases are unwarranted and must be set aside. The applications are therefore allowed, the convictions and sentence passed on the petitioners are set aside and fine if paid by the petitioners must now be refunded to them.