LexSTATE OF MYSORE versus SYED IBRAHIM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
c
D
I
'
G
H
SfATE OF MYSORE
v.
SYED mRAlllM
February 21, 1967
[J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.j
Motor Vehicles A,ct (4 of 1939), s.r. 42(1) and 123-"0wner of a
transport Vehicle", meaning of.
Under s. 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, no owner of a trans-
port vehicle shall use it or permit it to be used in any public place save
ID accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by the appropriate
authority.
A. "transport vehicle" means, µnder s. 2(33) a ''public ser-
vice vehicle" and· a ''public service vehicle" means, .under s. 2(2S), a
motor vehicle either used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passen-
gen for hire or re'fard. The respondent was the owner of a motor
vehicle registered as a "motor car" as defined in s. 2( 16) of the A.ct and
not, as a "trans.P.Qrt vehicle". He was
charged with an offence under
a, 42(1) read withs. 123 of the Act, as the car was used on one occasion
for carrying passengers . on payment of hire, that is, for having used the
car as a "transport vehicle" without the requisite permit. The trial court,
and the High Court on appeal, acquitted
him on the ground that as
s, 42(1) uses the words "owner of a transport vehicle" the sub-section
applies only to cases where the motor vehicle was registered as a transport
Yehicle.
Jn ":l'l'""1 to thia Court,
HELD : It is the use of the motor vehicle for carrying passengers for
hire or reward which determines the category of the vehicle and the appli-
c~
of a. 42( 1). Therefore, . even if the motor vehicle was occasionally
used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, it must be regarded when
ao uaed11 as a "public service vehicle" and therefore a "transport vehicle"
and, if it was so used without the necessary permit the oWller who uses
it or permits it to be so used would be liable under s. 42(1) read with
s. 123.
The interpretation of the High Court would lead to the anomal-
ous result, namely : that whereas the owner of a transport vehicle is re-
quired to have the permit, the owner of a motor vehicle not constructed
or adapted as a transport vehicle could carry with impunity passengers
without ~¥ permit, and such an interpretation would defeat the object
of the legislature in making the provision in the interest of the safety of
passengen. [67S F; 676 A-B; 677 H; 678 A-BJ
B. S. Usman Saheb v. State of Mysore, (19S9) Mys., L.J. 388 and
layaram v. State of My110re, (1962] Mys. L.J. 382, overruled.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 10
of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
July 10, 1964 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
223 of 1963.
R. H. Dhebaf and S. P. Nayyar, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
674
(!967) 21.c.a.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J, This appeal, by special leave, raises the questio11
as to the true meaning of section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
(4of1939).
The respondent, the owner of a motor car bearing No. MYU-
108'.I, carried 8 passengers in his said car on Nanjangucl-Mysore
Road on April 5, 1963 and collected Rs. 5 from each of them.
He was char6e-sheeted under section 42(1) read with section 123 of
the Act for having used the said car as "a transport vehicle" without
the permit required under section 42( I). The trial Magistrate
did not go into the merits though the prosecution led evidence and
acquitted him relying on the decision of ,the Hifh Court of Mysore
in Jayaram v. The State of Mysore('). The State took the matter in
appeal to the High Court urging that the said decision required
reconsideration. On the view that it did not, the High Court
dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.
In B.S. Usman Saheb v. The State of Mysore(') the question
arose whether an owner of a motor car who had carried cement bags
and .:ither goods frorr. one place to another without a permit under
section 42(1) could be said to have used a "goods vehicle", and,
therefore, could be said to have contravened section 42(1). The
trial Magistrate convicted the accused on the ground that once the
rar was used to transport goods, the vehicle was converted into "a
goods vehicle" and required permit. The High Court set aside
the conviction holding that the mere fact that the owner of such a
motor vehicle used it for transporting goods did not mean that the
vehicle was converted into a "goods vehicle" so as to attract section
42(1). Likewise in Jayaram v.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.