SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
The Public Prosecutor
Versus
Jevan and Ors.
Decided On : 29.04.1941

The duty to obtain a permit for a transport vehicle rests with the owner, but whoever drives the vehicle in a public place without a permit authorizing its use is punishable under Section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Offence under Section 123 (1) - Driving without permit

Fact of the Case:

The respondents, drivers of transport vehicles, were prosecuted for driving the vehicles on the public road without a permit. They were acquitted based on the plea that it was the duty of the owner to obtain the permit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that driving a transport vehicle on the public road without a permit contravened Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the drivers were convicted under Section 123 (1) of the Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the duty to obtain the permit rested solely with the owner or also extended to the drivers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted that whoever drives a vehicle in a public place without a permit authorizing the use of the vehicle would be punishable under Section 123 (1) of the Act, regardless of the duty to obtain the permit resting with the owner.

Final Decision: The orders of acquittal were set aside, and the respondents were convicted under Section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, with a fine of Rs. 5 each.

JUDGMENT

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. These are appeals by the Provincial Government against the orders of acquittal of the respondents of an offence under Section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The respondents are drivers of transport vehicles and they were prosecuted under Section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicles on the public road without a permit authorising the use of the vehicles in a public place. They pleaded that it was the duty of the owner to obtain the permit and accepting their plea the Sub-Magistrate acquitted them.

3. The alleged driving of the transport vehicles on the public road without a permit authorising the use of the vehicles in a public place was not denied by the respondents, and so far as is material, 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. The driving of a transport vehicle on the public road without such a permit would certainly contravene Section 42 (1) of the Act; and Section 123 (1) enacts that whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4- shall be punishable with fine. That the permit is to be obtained by the owner cannot make any difference and whoever drives the vehicle in a public place without a permit authorising the use of the vehicle in that place would be punishable under Section 123 (1) of the Act. The orders of acquittal are therefore set aside and the respondents are convicted under Section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. They are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 each and in default to simple imprisonment for one week.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top