Rigby J:

This was an appeal from a decision of the learned Magistrate, sitting at Bukit Mertajam, whereby the appellant was convicted of using his motor car for a purpose other than the purpose for which the licence was granted, contrary to the provisions of s. 22(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958. He was further convicted upon a second charge of using the vehicle in circumstances in which there was not in force, in relation to the use of the said motor vehicle, a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks, contrary to the provisions of s. 74 of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The nature of the second charge, and the conviction thereon, arose really as a direct result of the commission of the offence in respect of the first charge.

The facts were not in dispute. Shortly after mid-day on 26 May 1960, the appellant's motor vehicle was stopped by a police constable in one of the main streets in Bukit Mertajam. The rear seat of the car had been removed and 69 pineapples were found inside the car. The door of the boot of the car was down and four rolls of window chicks were protruding from the boot. The car, an Austin A 40, was taxed and licensed as a private motor vehicle, and the vehicle was insured as a private motor vehicle, with the usual limitation that the policy did not cover use "for hire or reward" or "the carriage of goods, other than samples, in connection with any trade or business......

On that evidence - and I would emphasise on that evidence alone - the appellant was prosecuted on these two charges.

In evidence he said that he was an estate contractor and that he had taken these pineapples - which were small pineapples, "left-overs" and unsaleable - from his brother's house to give to his, the appellant's, labourers. One of the labourers had, in fact, asked him to bring them. This evidence was corroborated. The chicks were for putting up in his own house.

The learned Magistrate apparently convicted the appellant on the sole ground that the articles carried were goods.

"Goods" are defined in s. 2 of the Road Traffic Ordinance as "anything carried on or in a motor vehicle for the purposes of any trade or business....." Then follow a number of exceptions which are irrelevant for consideration in this case.

As I have pointed out before [1961] MLJ 144 ), the object of this legislation is to prevent persons making use of their private motor vehicles for the carriage, of goods, other than samples, in the furtherance of their trade or business. The intention is to prevent the use of private motor vehicles for commercial purposes. Persons who wish to use their vehicles for commercial purposes must take out a carrier's licence under s. 98 of the Ordinance for which, of course, they are required to pay not merely a higher road tax fee but also a higher insurance premium. If they fail to comply with the law in this respect and choose to use their privately licensed motor vehicles for the carriage of goods in connection with their trade or business, then they run the risk of prosecution not only for using the vehicle for a purpose which it has not been licensed, but also on the further - and far more serious - charge of using the vehicle when not covered by a third party policy of insurance in relation to its user for that purpose-carrying goods - for which it is then being unlawfully used. A conviction on this later charge involves a mandatory disqualification for a minimum period of twelve months, unless the Court, for special reasons to be specified in the Order, thinks fit to order otherwise.

In this case on the facts before the Court there was, in my view, no evidence - or certainly no sufficient evidence at the close of the case for the prosecution - that the articles found in the car were being carried for the purposes of any trade or business. The appellant, in his own evidence, said the pineapples were a gift for his labourers and the window chicks for his own house.

The learned Deputy Public