Government Agent, Central Province V. Beeman

1932 Present: Drieberg J.

GOVERNMENT AGENT, CENTRAL PROVINCE v. BEEMAN.

978-P. C. Panwila, 17,309.

Motor car-Possession by registered owner-Defence that car is unserviceable-Exemption from liability to obtain licence-Duty of owner to cancel registration-Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, s. 24.

The registered owner of a motor car, who claims to be exempt from liability to obtain a licence for it on the ground that it is unserviceable, must procure a cancellation of the registration under section 24 of the Motor Car Ordinance.

THE accused-appellant was charged under section 20 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927, with possessing or using a motor car without a licence for the year 1931. The Police Magistrate convicted the accused and condemned him under section 30 (3) of the Ordinance to-pay the amount of the licence.

Wendt, C.C., for the respondent.-The judgment of the Police Magistrate is right.

Section 18 (1) of Ordinance No. 20 of 1927 indicates that the person who is required to be registered as the owner of a car is the person who at the time is entitled to possession of the car. When a person applies to be registered as the owner of a car he submits to the licensing authority an application in Form No. 2 in the third schedule to the Ordinance and

declares that he is entitled to the possession of the particular car. Though the application in Form No. 2 has not been produced in this case it can be inferred from the accused's letters P, P 1, P 2, which he does not deny writing, that he was duly registered as owner

Section 22 of the Ordinance requires a change of possession to be notified to the licensing authority by the registered owner.

Section 24 provides for the cancellation of the registration of a car on the car being destroyed, &c.

Section 30 (2) provides that the registered owner may give written notice of his intention not to use the car for a stated period, and that possession of the car during such stated period shall not be an offence. The accused has given no such notice for 1931 or any part of 1931.

In the absence of any steps taken by the accused under section 22, section 24 or section 30 (2) the presumption arises that he is still in possession of the car.

The case of Government Agent, Western Province v. Bilinda 1[3 Cr. Ap. Rep. 38.] can be distinguished. In that case a point is made in the judgment of Garvin I. that the charge was that accused " did fail to obtain the necessary licence . . . . for the car, " whereas section 30 (1), under which the accused was charged, does not make the failure to licence an offence. Further, the facts in that case were that the accused never actually took possession of the car at any time. The respondent was not represented and no argument on his behalf was placed before the Court.

April 21, 1932. DRIEBERG J.-

The appellant was charged on October 1, 1931, under section 20 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927, with possessing or using a motor car, bearing registered number D 1579, on January 1, 1931, without a licence for the year 1931. The complainant-respondent, the licensing authority, prayed that the appellant be condemned to pay the sum of Rs. 170, the amount of tax on the car. The Police Magistrate convicted the appellant, fined him Rs. 5 or in default one week's simple imprisonment, and condemned him under section 30 (3) of the Ordinance to pay the amount of the licence, Rs. 170.

The appellant is the registered owner of this motor car. There is no specific evidence of this by the production of the certificate of registration but the clerk of the Registrar of Motor Cars has stated that the appellant was the owner since June 10, 1928, when I take it he was registered as such. On December 16, 1929, the appellant wrote to the Registrar of Motor Cars that the vehicle, which he describes as " Bus No. 1579 ", was under repair. He wrote " I do not anticipate to pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document