Back
1965 Supreme(Ker) 189
Judges : P.GOVINDA MENON
Daniel And Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Crl. R. P. No. 157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168 of 1964
Decided On : 08/06/1965
Advocates Appeared :
V. K. K. Menon; C. S. Padmanabha Iyer; C. Sankaran Nair; M. Ramachandran; For Petitioners State Prosecutor; For Respondent
Important Points
Subject
Motor Vehicles Act - Permit Requirements and Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act - Offence under S.123 read with S.42(1) - S.42, S.123 - S.2(33), S.2(25), S.2(29), S.48(2), S.62, S.127-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of S.42 which prohibits the use of a transport vehicle without a permit, and S.123 which penalizes driving a motor vehicle without the required permit. The definitions of 'transport vehicle', 'public service vehicle', and 'stage carriage' under S.2 were also considered. The court emphasized the requirement of a permit for using a vehicle as a stage carriage and the conditions for granting such permits under S.46 and S.48(2). The judgment also referred to S.127-A which deals with the liability of individuals in charge of a company for contraventions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were tried for plying spare buses without a permit under S.123 read with S.42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The buses were used on a route without the necessary permit, and the court considered the arguments related to the permit requirements for spare buses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the first accused guilty of driving the vehicle without the necessary permit, as required by S.42(1) and upheld the conviction. However, the court acquitted accused 2 to 4 as there was no evidence to show their knowledge or connivance in the contravention. The court also set aside the direction for consecutive suspension of the permit and disqualification of the drivers.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the permit requirements under S.42 and the liability of the accused under S.123. The court also considered the application of S.127-A in determining the liability of individuals in charge of a company for contraventions of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that driving a vehicle without the necessary permit under S.42(1) constitutes an offence under S.123. The court emphasized the requirement of mens rea for offences under S.123 and the need for evidence to establish the knowledge or connivance of the accused. The court also clarified the application of S.127-A in determining the liability of individuals in charge of a company for contraventions of the Act.
Final Decision: The first accused was convicted, while accused 2 to 4 were acquitted. The direction for consecutive suspension of the permit and disqualification of the drivers was set aside.
1. In these 10 revision petitions the petitioners (accused 1 to 4) were tried by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Kalpetta for an offence under S.123 read with S.42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having plied their spare buses on different dates along the Meppady-Ootty route without having a permit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners these spare buses need not separately take out a permit under S.42(1) for use in case of break down of a route bus and in any view of the case accused 2 to 4 cannot be found guilty as they have not 'caused' or 'allowed' the drivers to use these vehicles. The question of law raised being the same and as these cases were argued together they can be disposed of conveniently in one common judgment.
2. There are two buses involved K.L.D. 270 and M.D.N. 2284, both belonging to the Rajalekshmi Motor Service. The first accused in each of the cases is the driver of the respective buses and accused 2 to 4 are said to be the owners. Pw.1 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Meppadi who has proved that these two buses were plying between Ootty and Meppady on the different dates and that it had no permit to run on those routes. That these buses were, in fact, run on these routes on the different dates is admitted.
S. 42 of the Act reads:
"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 authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.
xxxxxx
S. 123 of the Act says:
"Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of S.22 or without the permit required by sub-S. (1) of S.42 or in contravention of any conditions of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable "
S. 2 (33) defines 'transport vehicle' as a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle.
S. 2 (25) says a 'public service vehicle' means 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.
S. 2 (29) gives the definition of 'stage carriage'. Stage carriage means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than 6 persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey.
These buses come within the meaning of the term'transport vehicle'.
So S.42 provides that a person should not use or permit a motor vehicle to be used on any road as stage carriage unless he is the holder of a public service vehicle licence to use it as a vehicle of that class in accordance with the statutory provisions. An application for the grant of a stage carriage permit has to be made under S.46 specifying inter alia the routes or the area on which the vehicle is intended to be run and in the permit so granted the routes permitted would be entered and it is one of the conditions subject to which a permit is granted.
Under S.48 (2) every stage carriage permit shall be expressed to be valid only for a specified route or routes or for a specified area. S.62 deals with the grant of a temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need.
3. Rajalekshmi motor service runs a route bus from Ootty to Meppady, but on account of the temporary break down of that bus these two spare buses were used on the different dates.
The registration certificate of these buses were produced for scrutiny before the court below, but it was not marked. The permit of the two buses have been produced now, by the defence counsel, in this court with a petition Crl. M.P. 315/65 to receive the same as additional evidence under S.428 Crl. P.C, Notice was given and the rece
