ORDER

V.G. Oak, C.J. - This revision arises out of a prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). Ram Sewak was found driving a jeep motor car with six passengers on hire. The accused did not hold a permit for using the jeep car as a taxi. He was, therefore, prosecuted under the Act. He pleaded guilty. The trial court accepted the plea and convicted the accused. He was fined Rs. 60 u/s 112 and was fined Rs. 590 u/s 123 of the Act. The court recommended that registration of the vehicle be suspended fop 60 days. An appeal filed by Ram Sewak was dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. Ram Sewak has, therefore, come to this Court in revision.

2. It will be noticed that the Applicant has been convicted under two separate sections of the Act. The scope of the two sections will have to be discussed separately.

3. Firstly, we may consider the applicability of Section 123 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 123 opf the Act states:

Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 22 or without the permits required by Sub-section (1) of Section 42 or in contravention of any condition of such permit...shall be punishable.

4. It will be seen that conviction u/s 123 is permissible under three circumstances Firstly, there may be a contravention of Section 22, Secondly, the accused might have driven a motor vehicle without a permit as required by the Sub-section 42. Thirdly, there may be a contravention of any condition of such permit. We may consider whether the present case is covered by any of these alternatives.

5. Section 22 mentions necessity for registration. Sub-section (1) of Section 22 states:

No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or...unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter....

Section 22 lays down that every motor vehicle must be registered. In the presence the jeep motor car in question has been registered. Its registration No is 4566 since the motor vehicle was registered in accordance with the Act, there was no contravention of Section 22.

6. Section 42 deals with necessity for permits Sub-section (1) of Section 42 states:

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....

7. It is the Applicant's case that he is not the owner of the jeep car. The motor vehicle belongs to one Girdhari Lal. In support of this allegation an affidavit was filed by Girdhari Lal be fore the Sessions Judge. It was stated in that affidavit Girdhari Lal is the owner of jeep No. UPZ 4566 and that Ram Sewak is the driver of the jeep Thus position is accepted by the prosecution.

8. In Jayaram v. State of Mysore 1962 (2) Cri LJ 707 it was by Mysore High Court that driver of a vehicles commits no offence punishable u/s 123.

Similarly, in Hari Gopal v. State 1956 AWR 122 Brij Mohan Lal, J. pointed out that Section 42 imposes certain obligation on the owner of a vehicle. No duty is cast by Sub-section (1) of Section 42 on the driver or the conductor.

9. The expression 'transport vehicle' has been defined in Clause (33) of Section 2 of the Act; "transport vehicle" means "a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle."

10. In order that a motor vehicle is classed as 'transport vehicle', the vehicle must be either for public service or for carrying goods. There is no suggestion that the jeep car in question was ever used for carrying goods. It is true that on one occasion the jeep was used by the accused for carrying six passengers. But it is doubtful whether carrying passengers on a solitary occasion would convert the jeep into a public service vehicle.

11. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 contemplates the use of a transport vehicle by its owner. In the first place, it is doubtful whether the jeep motor car in question was a transport vehi