Back
VANDERSTRAATEN v. NARAYANASWAMY
NLR34V103
1932 Present : Macdonell C.J.
and Garvin S.P.J.
VANDERSTRAATEN v. NARAYANASWAMY.
39-P. C. Matale, 4,968.
Motor car-Cab licensed to carry passengers-Used for conveying mails-
Infringement of licence-Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, ss. 30 and 31:
It is an offence to use a motor cab licensed to carry passengers for conveying
mail bags.
CASE
referred by Akbar J. to two Judges. The accused, the driver of a motor cab
licensed to carry passengers, was convicted of a breach of section 31 of the
Motor Car Ordinance in that he used the car in contravention of the conditions
inserted in his licence, to carry mailbags.
It would appear that the accused carried a few mail bags on behalf of the owner,
who had a contract with the Postmaster-General for the carriage of mails.
E. Navaratnam (with him C. T. Olegesagaram), for accused, appellant.-
There is
no provision in the Ordinance which accused has contravened. There is no express
prohibition against carriage of goods in hiring car.
In case of omnibuses there is express provision made for carriage of goods.
There is no such provision in case of hiring car.
Section 31 does contemplate the insertion of certain provisions in licence. If
legislature intended to prohibit carriage of goods in hiring car. the licence
would bear such prohibition.
Section 68, sub-section (1), makes provision for conductor searching for
property left behind. Hence there is no absolute prohibition against carriage of
property in hiring car.
The Ordinance has been enacted for two purposes-safety of public and revenue. In
case of private car, the scale of charges depends on weight of car. There is no
loss caused to revenue in this instance.
To bring an act under the penal law, such act must be within the words of the
Ordinance and also within the spirit of that Ordinance (Maxwell on
Interpretation of Statute 464, ch. 10.) This maxim should be applied to this
case.
The accused may have treated the mail bags as property of his master which had
been entrusted to him.
M. W. H. de Silva, Acting D. S.- G. (with him Wendt, C.C.), for the Crown.-The
law might contemplate other things besides loss of revenue, for instance, the
safety of the public.
Section 30 says that no motor car should be used for any purpose other than that
for which licence has been issued. If a person goes beyond purpose of licence
then he commits an offence. Personal luggage does not come into question in this
case. This is a case of purely carrying goods.
Chapter 86, page 17, of English Hackney Carriage Act provides that a vehicle may
carry a reasonable quantity of luggage. There is no such provision in our
Ordinance. Counsel cited Pillai v. Moss 1[31 N. L. R. 240.].
October 4, 1932. MACDONELL C.J.-
This was a case referred by Akbar J. to a bench of two Judges.
Accused, the driver of a motor cab licensed to carry five passengers including
the driver, carried in it on the day in question 7 mail bags, 5 empty mail bags
and 1 letter box, and is said thereby to have committed a breach of section 31
in that he used the car in contravention of the conditions lawfully inserted in
his licence. It was not denied that he had carried" the mail bags as stated in
the charge. His licence was not produced here or below but it seems to have been
agreed that it was identical with that "given as No. 15 in the Third Schedule of
Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, which states that the licence is "To carry . . . .
passengers." He was convicted, warned and discharged, being also convicted on
another charge not material to the present appeal.
It was argued for the appellant that as the carriage of goods by motor cab is
not forbidden in a motor cab licence, the accused could not be convicted.
In reply it was argued that sections 30 and 31 of Ordinance No. 20 of 1927 make
a comprehensive enactment. Section 30 (1) says " No person . . . . shall use a
motor car" (this by definition includes mot
