1956 Present : T. S. Fernando, J.

A. L. M. ISMAIL, Appellant, and H. L. PERERA (Sub-Inspector
of Police, Hatton), Respondent

S. C. 514-M. C. Hatton, 8,387

Hiring car-Carrying too many passengers-Suspension of driver's driving licence--Legality-" Offence committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle"--Motor Traffic Act No. 14 of 1951, ss. 138 (1), 181 (1), 226.

When a person is convicted of driving a hiring car carrying therein passengers in excess of the permitted number, the offence is one committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 138 (1) of the Motor Traffic Act. Therefore, an order of suspension of his driving licence is not illegal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Hatton.

C. Chellappah, for the accused-appellant-

Ananda 0. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 7, 1956. T. S. FERNANDO, J.-

The appellant was convicted on his own plea on the following charge :-

" That he did on 4th February 1956 at Dickoya, being the driver of hiring car No. CN. 5655 on a highway, to wit, Main Street, Dickoya, carry therein 17 adult persons excluding himself when it was licensed to carry only 7 persons, and thereby carried 10 persons in excess in breach of section 181 of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951, an offence punishable under section 226 of the same Act. "

The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 and his driving licence was suspended for a period of one year.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant before me has contended that the order of suspension of the driving licence is illegal and it has become necessary to examine the powers vested in a Court by section 138 (1) of the Motor Traffic Act No. 14 of 1951.

Section 138 (1) is in the following terms :-

" Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any court before which a person is convicted of any offence under this Act. or of any offence under any other written law committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, may in addition toany other punishment which it may lawfully impose for that offence-

(a) if the person convicted is the holder of a driving licence issued or deemed to be issued under this Act, suspend the licence for a specified period not exceeding two years, or cancel the licence ; or

(b) if the person convicted is not the holder of a driving licence declare him to be disqualified for obtaining a driving licence for a specified period. "

It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to consider the provisions of sub-section (2) or any other sub-section of section 138. Learned counsel argues

(a) that although the appellant has been convicted of an offence under
the Motor Traffic Act it is not an offence committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle ; and

(b) that the power of the Court to suspend a driving licence of a person
convicted is limited to the case of persons convicted of offences committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle.

Learned Crown Counsel has argued that in any event it is only in the case of a conviction for an offence under a written law other than the Motor Traffic Act that there is the additional requirement that the offence should be one committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle before an order suspending the driving licence of the offender could be made. It is, however, unnecessary for me to consider this argument which depends upon the interpretation to-be placed on

this sub-section as I am satisfied that the offence to which the appellant-pleaded guilty was an offence committed in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle.

There are several cases decided in the English Courts upon the meaning of the words " in connection with the driving of a motor car " appearing in a similar context in section 4 (1) of the Motor Car Act of 1903.

In Rex v. Yorkshire {Wes