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

1945 Supreme(Mad) 146

HAPPELL


ORDER

Happell, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The facts as proved are that a motor car owned by the petitioner was twice used, on the 1st of July and a week before, for taking bundles of newspapers from the office of the Indian Express to the railway station. Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the use of a transport vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of a permit and Section 123 provides the punishment for an offence in contravention of Section 42(1). A goods vehicle is by definition a transport vehicle [Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act]; and "goods vehicle " is defined in Section 2(8) as follows:

goods vehicle means 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. The petitioner held no permit for the use of the motor car as a transport vehicle, and accordingly if the motor car was a "goods vehicle " as defined in Section 2(8) by reason of the fact that it was use

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top