The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act and its application to the status of a mobile crane.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Definition of Motor Vehicle - Section 2(18), Section 22, Rule 202-A - The court discussed the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Act, the requirement of certificate of registration and certificate of fitness for transport vehicles, and the obligation for periodical testing and inspection of motor vehicles older than 20 years. The court also considered the amendment to the definition of 'motor vehicle' and its implications, citing relevant case law such as Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa and Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Kerala.
Fact of the Case:

The owner of a mobile crane was alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rule 202-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by not possessing the requisite certificate of fitness.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that a mobile crane is a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Act, and therefore, the petition against the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether a mobile crane is considered a motor vehicle under the Act and whether the owner had contravened the provisions of Rule 202-A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Act, the requirement of certificates of registration and fitness, and the implications of the amendment to the definition of 'motor vehicle'. The court also considered relevant case law to determine the status of the mobile crane as a motor vehicle.
Final Decision: The petition against the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate was dismissed, and the court held that a mobile crane is a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Act.

JUDGMENT - VAZE V.V., J.: - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act') is a consolidating and amending Act relating to motor vehicles. Under Clause (18) of section 2 of the Act, 'motor vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. Clause (33) of section 2 defines “transport vehicle” to mean a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle, and section 22 makes it obligatory upon the owner to obtain a certificate of registration before causing or permitting the vehicle to be driven in any public place. In addition to the requirement of a certificate of registration, section 38 further prescribes that a transport vehicle should, in addition, carry a certificate of fitness in Form 'H' as set forth in the First Schedule.

2. Even though a vehicle which is not a transport vehicle does not ordinarily require a certificate of fitness as prescribed by section 38, Rule 202-A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 ('Rules') enjoins upon the owner of the motor vehicle which is older than 20 years from the date of its first registration to apply the registering authority every year for periodical testing and inspection of the vehicles. A breach of Rule 202-A constitutes an offence punishable under section 112 of the Act.

3. Messrs Ishardas Sons a partnership firm, owned a mobile crane No. 3039 which has been registered with the Regional Transport authorities, as a non-transport vehicle. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Regional Transport office, Bombay, filed a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, alleging that the owner of the crane has contravened the provisions of Rule 202-A which is punishable under section 112 of the Act upon which the learned Magistrate ordered issue of process. Though a perusal of the complaint does not contain enough narration of facts, but only a recital of various sections of the Act, it is common ground that the owner did not possess the requisite certificate of fitness which he should have obtained after producing the vehicle for inspection and testing as required under Rule 202-A.

4. Upon receipt of the process issued by the learned Magistrate, Messrs Ishardas Sons filed a Criminal application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the process. Sharad Manohar, J., before whom the matter came up for hearing on 29th June, 1983 was of the opinion that this was a fit case where the same should be decided by a larger Bench, upon which the matter was put before a Division Bench of Kurdukar and Tated, JJ. The learned Judges directed that the Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay, should after giving hearing to the parties, decide the question whether a “Mobile Crane” is not a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Act, and the same is not required to be registered under section 22 nor is liable for inspection under Rule 202-A of the Rules.

5. The Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, before whom the matter was thus remitted, by his order dated 29-7-1985, held that a mobile crane is a motor vehicle under the definition of motor vehicle given in section 2(18) of the Act and proceeded to give consequential findings on other issues. That is how the matter has come up before this Bench for disposal of the Original Criminal Writ Petition No. 745 of 1982.

6. At the outset, it will have to be stated that the definition of the word “motor vehicle” under the carious English Statutes will be of no avail for our present purposes, for the simple reason that the English Statutes (like Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, and Road Traffic Act, 1972) define “Motor Vehicle” to mean “a me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document