Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B. S. Somasundaram, J.
V. Mariappan, In re. .....In Re.
Crl. A. No. 318 of 1969.
Decided On : 17 November 1970
Motor Vehicles Act - Conviction under section 42(1) and section 123 - Use of vehicle as a stage carriage without permit
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for using a bus as a stage carriage without the required permit under section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by a passenger to be credible, establishing that the bus was used as a stage carriage in contravention of the Act. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence as not excessive.
Issues: Conviction under section 42(1) and section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act for unauthorized use of a vehicle as a stage carriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of section 42(1) and section 123(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibit the use of a transport vehicle in a public place without the required permit, and impose punishment for driving a motor vehicle in contravention of these provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Mariappan, the appellant herein, stands convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, for an offence under section 42 (1) read with section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Bus bearing Registration No. MDS 9370 is a contract carriage registered in the name of one Muthuswamy. This bus was driven by the petitioner on 13th December, 1968 as a stage carriage. This was detected by P.W.1, the Reserve Sub-Inspector. The petitioner in defence stated that he did not receive any cash from any passenger and that the members of a tourist party alone were in this bus. Not accepting his defence, the learned Magistrate has convicted him as stated above. The correctness of this conviction is now canvassed in this appeal.
3. Murugesan (P.W. 2) who was in this bus on that day, has sworn that he paid Rs. 10 into the hands of the driver at the time when he got into the bus. He has further sworn that the driver gave him a token and that this token was collected back when the bus left the place. His further evidence is that he was not a member of any party and that he was an individual passenger. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence and his evidence establishes that this bus was used as a stage carriage as stated by the prosecution.
4. Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that 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 authorising the use of the vehicle in that place. Driving of a transport vehicle on the public road without such a permit would certainly contravene section 42(1) of the Act. Section 123(1) enacts that whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 42 shall be punishable with fine. That the permit is to be obtained by the owner cannot make any difference and whoever drives the vehicle without a permit authorising the use of the vehicle would be punishable under section 123(1) of the Act. Vide Public Prosecutor v. Jeevan and others1and State of U.P. v. Bansraj2.
5. The convictions are correct. The sentence is not excessive. Both are con-finned. The appeal is dismissed.
K.G.S. ------- Conviction and sentence confirmed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
