Point of Law: In Section 114 of Motor Vehicles Act, manner of dealing with vehicles carrying excess load is specified.

ORDER :

In all these Crl.M.Cs. the respective petitioners are challenging the prosecution initiated against them by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 113(3)(b) r/w. Section 194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The common allegation against the petitioners in all these Crl.M.Cs. are that they have carried the excess load in their goods carriages and thereby committed the offences. The petitioners are the drivers and registered owners of the respective vehicles.

2. Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C Nos.6645/22, 6716/22 and 6634/2022, Sri.K.Aboobacker Sidheeque, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.6985/2022, 6986/2022 and 6979/2022, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in Crl.M.C Nos.6716/22, 6645/2022, 6986/2022 and 6985/2022, Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents in Crl.M.C.No.6634/2022 and Sri.Sangeetharaj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in Crl.M.C.No.6979/2022.

3. Since the common legal contentions are raised in all these Crl.M.Cs., I am not dealing with the factual situation in each case separately. One of the crucial contentions raised by the petitioners is that the proceedings which are initiated based on complaint submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector are not legally sustainable mainly because of the reason that, the offences alleged against them are non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the final report submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector cannot be taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate. However, on examining the records, it can be seen that in all these cases, the prosecutions were initiated based on complaints submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and none of the said prosecutions were based on any police report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC. Therefore, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is not legally sustainable in law.

4. Another crucial contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the implication of the registered owners of the said vehicle as the accused. According to the petitioners, such implication is not contemplated in the said provision. Before considering the aforesaid question, it is profitable to refer to the statutory stipulation under Section 113(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows:

“Section 113(3): No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer—

(a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or

(b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration.”

Even though the offence is contemplated under Subsection (3) of Section 113, Subsection (4) of Section 113 contemplates a presumption against the owner of the said vehicle and it reads as follows:

“113(4): Where the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer driven in contravention of sub-section (2) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) is not the owner, a Court may presume that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer.”

The challenge raised in these Crl.M.Cs. with respect to the implication of the owners as accused person is that, as per Sub-section (4) of Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the presumption that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer, is contemplated only in respect of the offence under Subsection (3)(a) of Section 113 of the Act, which deals with excess unladen weight. It is pointed out that in all these cases, the allegation is that when the vehicles of the petitioners were inspected, it was found that the laden weight exceeded the gross vehicle weight