Rigby J:

This case has been referred to me by the learned Magistrate himself. The Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges preferred against him of using his motor vehicle for a purpose other than that for which it was licensed, contrary to reg. 19(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) regs, 1954, and secondly, using the said motor vehicle when there was not in force in relation to its user a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of these Regulations, contrary to reg. 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks Regulations.

The brief facts of the case were that the Defendant was stopped on a public road when driving his pte passenger vehicle. The vehicle was found to be loaded with 3.20 piculs of green bananas and 6 live ducks. The vehicle was licensed as a pte passenger vehicle only and the certificate of insurance covering its use specifically did not cover use for the carriage of goods other than samples in connection with any trade or business. Prima facie, the vehicle was being used as a goods vehicle and not as a pte passenger vehicle and therefore its use was not covered against third party risks by the policy of insurance held by the Defendant as its owner. The learned Magistrate fined the Defendant on both charges. However, under reg. 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks Regulations a conviction entails a compulsory order of a minimum period of twelve months' disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving license, unless the Court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise. The learned Magistrate admittedly overlooked this mandatory disqualification. The ease must, therefore, be remitted to him for him to give the defendant an opportunity, if he can, to advance any reasons which the Magistrate, in his discretion, may consider sufficient to justify him not imposing what would otherwise be the compulsory period of disqualification on a conviction. In considering what are, or are not, special reasons, the learned Magistrate would do well to consider the cases of:- PP v. M Karthiah [1953] MLJ 52; PP v. Mohamed Jee [1953] MLJ 54; and Re Antharanik Simon.