The Government Agent, Province Of Sabaragamuwa V. Peries

1934 Present: Drieberg J.

THE GOVERNMENT AGENT, PROVINCE OF SABARAGAMUWA v. PERIES

950-P. C. Ratnapura, 3,742

Motor car-Possession of motor car without licence-Proof of user not necessary-Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, ss. 2 (2) and 30 (I).
In a charge under section 30 (1) of possessing a motor car without a licence no proof is necessary of its user during the period when there was no licence in force.

APPEAL from an acquittal by the Police Magistrate of Ratnapura.

Wickremanayake, C.C., for complainant, appellant.

Cur. adv. vult.

 December 17, 1934. DRIEBERG J.-

The accused was charged with having possessed or used a motor car for which a motor car licence was not in force. This is an offence under section 30 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927. On June 21 he pleaded not guilty and the trial was fixed for July 4. On the day of trial the accused admitted that the car was registered in his name. There was some discussion regarding the application of some authority. It was stated for the accused that the car was non-existent; the learned Police Magistrate said that without expressing an opinion on the matter discussed he would call on the accused to lead evidence, and fixed the further hearing for July 23. On that day the accused said he would plead guilty and that in the meantime he wanted to correspond with the Registrar of Motor Cars. It was ordered that the case should be called on August 29. On this day the Magistrate noted that in view of section 2 (2) of the Ordinance he asked the Kachcheri Clerk, who was conducting the prosecution for the complainant, the Government Agent of the Province, whether he could prove that the car was being used on a highway. The Kachcheri Clerk said that all he could do was to produce the certificate of registration and prove that the registration had not been cancelled nor had notice of non-user been given. He relied apparently on the ruling in the case of The Government Agent, Central Province v. Beeman1[1 N. L. R. 343.], referred to at the argument on July 4. The learned Magistrate then made the order from which this appeal is taken. He held that though he agreed with the prosecution that "possess" in section 30 (1) had to be construed as equivalent to "own" and that, under section 25 the accused was to be deemed the owner, and that so long as the registration remained the accused could not be heard to say that the car was nonexistent, he was of opinion that by reason of section 2 (2) of the Ordinance the words " motor car " only applied to a car when on a highway and as the prosecution could not prove that the car was on a highway at any time during the current year, for which its licence was not renewed, he had to acquit the accused.

Section 2 (2), which influenced him to this conclusion, is as follows:- "Unless otherwise provided this Ordinance applies to a motor car only when on a highway". This section is not well worded. The Ordinance contains provisions regulating the use of motor cars and also provisions regarding cars in matters independent of and unconnected with use. Illustrations of the former are to be found in Chapter 7, which deals with rules regulating driving, and Chapter 8, which deals among other matters with speed limits, and these may be made applicable by regulations to specified areas other than highways, section 58 (1).

Matters unconnected with the use of cars are to be found, apart from the section under consideration, in section 18 (1) which makes it an offence for a person to possess a car without being registered as the owner of it. Section 20 provides that once a car is registered the registered owner should give information to the Registrar of any alteration in its weight, dimensions, character or seating accommodation which would affect the accuracy of the description of it in the Register of Motor Cars. In the case of change of possessi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document