1927 Present: Lyall Grant J.

KING v. RATNASINGHAM.

93-P. C. Jaffna, 12,804.

Motor car-Permitting or suffering a private car to he used for hiring purposes-Vehicles Ordinance, No. 4 of 1916, s. 44 (2)?Liability of owner.

The owner of a motor car cannot be said to have " permitted or suffered " his car to be used for any purpose not set out in his licence, without evidence of knowledge or connivance or carelessness on his part.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Jaffna.  The charge was that the accused did on November 23 and 30, 1926, being the owner of a private car, allow the same to convey passengers on hire without obtaining a hiring licence, in breach of section 44 (2) of Ordinance No. 4 of 1916. It was proved in evidence that the car was registered in the name of the accused as a private car. It was also proved that the car was used for purposes of hiring on the dates in question. The defence was that the accused had sold the car in August to one Kathiresu, but that as the money was not paid he did not notify the change of ownership to the Registrar. The learned Police Magistrate convicted the accused.

H. V. Perera (with Spencer Rajaratnam), for accused, appellant.

May 24, 1927. LYALL GRANT J.-

This is an appeal from a conviction in the Police Court of Jaffna. The charge was that the accused did on November 23 and 30, 1926, at Jaffna, Kopay, being the owner of a private car, No. H 334, allow the same to convey passengers on hire without obtaining a hiring licence, in breach of section 44, sub-section (2), of Ordinance No. 4 of 1916, and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under that section.

It was proved in evidence that the car was registered in the name of the accused as a private car. It was also proved that on the dates in question the car was used for purposes of hiring, being driven by a certain individual named Sinnappu. The case for the defence was that the accused was not the real owner of the car that he bought it in August, and soon afterwards transferred it to one Kathiresu, but that as the money wag not paid he did not notify the change of ownership to the Registrar. There was no written evidence of this transaction, but the evidence of the accused was supported by another proctor in Jaffna. He said that the car

was delivered to Kathiresu on or about September 15, and that Kathiresu removed it from Irrupalai, where the accused's residence is, to Kopay. The driver, Sinnappu, was admittedly employed, by the accused for the few days that the car was with the accused before he handed over possession to Kathiresu. Thereafter there is evidence that Sinnappu was Kathiresu's driver, and that he remained in Kathiresu's employment till the offence took place and when he was fined for the offence of using the car for a purpose not set out in the licence.

The learned Magistrate has expressed doubt as to the story of the change of ownership told by the defence. He holds that the accused has failed to discharge satisfactorily the burden he undertook of proving that he was not the owner, and he proceeds to say " I find him guilty therefore." Obviously, the assumption in the Magistrate's mind was that if the accused was at the date of the offence the owner of the ear, he was if so facto guilty of the offence of permitting or suffering his vehicle to be used for purposes not set out in his licence. I may mention that throughout the case it is assumed that the licence granted for this car did not allow it to be used for purposes of hiring. No evidence has been given in regard to this. It would have been better and more formal had that been proved. Any way, the point has not been raised, and as it may be that a licence for a private car does not allow it to be used for purposes of hiring, I merely draw the attention of the police to this omission for the purpose of pointing out that formal proof ought to be led of m