Use of vehicle solely for agricultural purpose.

This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, in C.C. No. 313 of 1962 by which he acquitted the respondents of offences under sections 123 and 125 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939) and the firstrespondent (A-1) of an offence under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (III of 1931).

The following are the relevant facts: On 29th April, 1962 the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kakinada, checked a tractor and trailer combination bearing Registration Nos. A.P.P. 3795 and 3796 respectively at Kadiam. The vehicles were carrying bricks, a building material. The owner of these vehicles is the first respondent. At the time of the checking, the 2nd respondent was driving the tractor. The driver did not produce the registration certificate, the insurance certificate, the driving licence, the permit and the fitness certificates. The tax for the quarter ending 30th June, 1962 was not paid. No tax disc was exhibited. The officer seized the vehicles and handed them to the Police at Dowleshwaram. The respondents were prosecuted for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

The Judicial Second Glass Magistrate acquitted the respondents of the offences as above stated in the view that a tractor was not a transport vehicle within the meaning of section 2 (33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, that section 38 of the said Act had therefore no application and there was therefore no liability to produce the fitness certificates and the certificate of insurance and further that an offence under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was not committed as there was no proof that the vehicles were used for non-agricultural purposes throughout the quarter. The learned Magistrate purported to follow the decision of Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J., in Rayala Rama Rao, In re1, in finding as above.

The appeal came on for hearing before Mirza, J. The learned Judge felt that a Bench might go into this question and that is how the case is before us.

There is no controversy over the facts that on the day when the Motor Vehicles Inspector checked the vehicles, the relevant certificates were not produced and that tax had not been paid for that quarter.

The learned Public Prosecutor has urged before us that it is incorrect to say that a tractor with a trailer attached is not a transport vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and that it is equally incorrect to say that the vehicles fall within the purview of section 11-A of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 and are therefore exempt from tax.

The first point which arises for our consideration is whether the tractor with a trailer attached are transport vehicles within the meaning of section 2 (33) of the Motor Vehicles Act. We would first peruse the relevant definitions in the Act.

Section 2, clause (33) defines “transport vehicle” asmeaning “a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle”. A public service vehicle is defined in section 2 (25) thus:

“‘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.”

A goods vehicle is defined in section 2 (8) as meaning:

“any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers.”

Section 2 (18) defines a “motor vehicle” thus:

“‘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.”

It is therefore to be noticed that the definition of the motor vehicle und