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 permi