LexMUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAIPUR & AHR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A .. .. I • B c D \ F G H 915 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAIPUR & AHR. v . STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH August'18, 1~69 [S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (27 of 1961), ss. 2(g) and 38- 'Afotor Transport Undertaking', if includes municipality owning transport rehicles used for carriage of goods-:-'Public order' in s. 38-If includes 'public health'. Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 243, 244 and 245- Suinnions case-Complaint dismissed without stating particulars of offence to accused-Order, if amounts to discharge or acquittal. The appellant (Municipal Council) owned transport vehicles and used those vehicles for the maintenance of public health in the Municipality by transporting the night soil and refuse df the town, and by distributing water. It employed 50 transport workers. As it had not been registered as required under s. 3(1) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, a complaint was filed against it. On receiving the summons, the Chief Municipal Officer. appeared, and even 'before the particulars of the offence were stated to him, filed preliminary objections that the Municipal Connci; was not a 'motor transport undertaking' and that the transport vehicles owned by the Council were exempt under s. 38 of the Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint and a revision to the Sessions Court was also dis- missed. A further revision to the High Court under s. 439 Criminal Procedure Code, was allowed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that : ( 1) the case being a summons case the dismissal of the complaint was an order of acquittal and not one of discharge and hence, only an appeal lay under s. 417, Cr. P. C., and not a revision under s. 439; (2) the appellant did not fall within the definition of the expression 'motor transport undertaking' in s. 2(g) of the Act; and (3) the transport vehicles owned by the appellant were exempt under s. 38 of the Act, because, the transport vehicles were used for a purpose connected with the maintenance of 'public order'. HELD : (i) Since the complaint was dismissed before anything was done it amounted to an order of discharge and not an acquittal, and so the revision was competent. [917 CJ (2) The expression 'motor transport undertaking' in s. 2(g) includes a 'private carrier' as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appel- lant fell within the definition df 'private carrier' inasmuch as the appellant owned transport vehicles and used them solely for the carriage of goods. It cannot be said that only an undertaking of a commercial nature was ;ntended to be included within the definition of motor transport undertak- ing, because. (a) the Motor Transport Workers Act is a beneficial Act and the Legislature intended to enlarge the meaning of the expression 'motor transport undertaking' and so, the enactment should not be cons- tmed strictly; (bl the words of the definition are plain and are not suscep- tible of any limitation: and (c) s. 38, which exempts certain transport vehicles proceeds on the basis that a private carrier carrying on activities \vhich are not of a comn1ercial chafacter, would also be included in the expression 'motor transport un;lertaking'. [918 C -F] 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1970] I S.C.R. (3) Tho words 'public order' in s. 38 mean 'public peace and tran· A quillity' and do not inclu<le 'pub!ic hc:i:lth'. Therefore, the exempti\ln under "· 38 is not attr:icted. f9ZO A-Bj Ramesh Tlwppar v. S1a1e of Madm<. [1950] S.C.R. 594, explaine•I. CRIMlr<AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1967. B Appeal by special leave frvm the judgment and order dated March 6, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision !'Jo. 159 of 1966. G. L. Sanghi and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellants. l. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by si;ecial leave arises out of the fol· lowing facts. Inspector Ahuja inspected the Municipal Council, Raipur, under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961-hcrein· after referred to as the Act-and found that 50 transport workers, including drivers, conductors, mechanics, etc., had been employed by the Council I.Jut the Council had not be~n registered as requir- ed under s. 3(1) of the Act. He filed a complaint before the Special Magistrate and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, who issued summons to the accused,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.