SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 47

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
The State of Mysore, Appellant
Versus
Syed Ibrahim, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1965,
D/- 21-2-1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar, Advocates, for Appellant.

Advocates:
R.H.Dhebar, S.P.NAIR

Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to all motor vehicles used as transport vehicles, regardless of whether they are registered as such.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 42 (1) - TRANSPORT VEHICLE - USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE FOR CARRYING PASSENGERS FOR HIRE OR REWARD - PERMIT REQUIRED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 42 (1).

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, the owner of a motor car, carried 8 passengers in his said car and collected Rs. 5 from each of them. He was charged under Section 42 (1) read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act for having used the said car as "a transport vehicle" without the permit required under Section 42 (1).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to all motor vehicles used as transport vehicles, regardless of whether they are registered as such. The court further held that the use of a motor vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward is what determines whether it is a transport vehicle, and that such use requires a permit under Section 42 (1).

Issues: Whether Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act applies only to motor vehicles registered as transport vehicles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to mean that any motor vehicle used as a transport vehicle, regardless of whether it is registered as such, requires a permit under that section. The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 42 (1) is to control the use of transport vehicles, and that this purpose would be defeated if the section were interpreted to apply only to registered transport vehicles.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the High Court, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

Judgement

SHELAT, J. : This appeal, by special leave, raises the question as to the true meaning of Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939).

2. The respondent, the owner of a motor car bearing No. MYU-1089, carried 8 passengers in his said car on Nanjangud-Mysore Road on April 5, 1963 and collected Rs. 5 from each of them. He was charge-sheeted under Section 42 (1) read with Section 123 of the Act for having used the said car as "a transport vehicle" without the permit required under Section 42 (1). The trial Magistrate did not go into the merits though the prosecution led evidence and acquitted him relying on the decision of the High Court of Mysore in Jayaram v. State of Mysore, (1962) 40 Mys LJ 382. The State took the matter in appeal to the High Court urging that the said decision required reconsideration. On the view that it did not, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.

3. In B. S. Usman Saheb v. State of Mysore, (1959) 37 Mys LJ 388 the question arose whether an owner of a motor car who had carried cement bags and other goods from one place to anther goods from one place to another without a permit under Section 42(1) could be said to have used a goods vehicle , and, therefore, could be said to have contravened Section 42(1). The trial Magistrate convicted the accused on the ground that once the car was used to transport goods, the vehicle was converted into a goods vehicle and required permit. The High Court set aside the conviction holding that the mere fact that the owner of such a motor vehicle used it for transporting goods did not mean that the vehicle was converted into a goods vehicle so as attract Section 42 (1). Likewise in (1962) 40 Mys LJ 382 the accused who had his motor vehicle registered as a motor car used it for carrying passengers for reward. The High Court held that the said vehicle having been registered as a motor car as defined by Section 2(16) was not " a transport vehicle" and no prosecution could lie under Section 42 (1). The State of Mysore challenges the correctness of these decisions contending that though a motor vehicle is registered as motor car, if it is used for a purpose set out in Section 42. (1), viz., carrying passengers for hire or reward the motor vehicle on that occasion must be said to have been used as a transport vehicle , and if so used without a permit, there would be a breach of that provision and the owner so using it or permitting it to be so used would be liable to be convicted.

4. To test the correctness of this contention some of the relevant provisions of the Act may first be considered. Section 2 (18) defines a motor vehicle as meaning any mechanically -propelled vehicle adapted for use- upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. Section 2 (16) defines a motor car as meaning any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, motorcycle or invalid carriage. Clause 25 of S. 2 defines public service vehicle as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a motor cab contract carriage and stage carriage. Section 2 (33) defines a transport vehicle as meaning a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle. .Section 3 requires a person driving a motor vehicle in any public place to, have an effective driving licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle and provides that no person shall drive motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. Section 42 in Chapter IV deals with control of transport vehicles. Subsection {1) provides; "No owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or the Commission authorising the use of the vehicle in







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top