THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus BANSRAJ

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 09-10-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
153 
expression in the proviso to para.graph B of Part I of 
r958 
the Act. We a.re not concerned with this aspect of the 
Rajputana 
matter in the present appeal. However, in dealing 
Ag•ncias Ltd. 
with the question raised before them, the learned 
v. 
judges have incidentally construed the relevant words Commissioner of 
" rate applicable" a.s meaning the rate actually a.ppli-
I. T .• Bomb·•Y 
ed ; and their observations do support the view ta.ken G . d -dk 1 
by the Sa.ura.shtra. High Court in the present case. 
a;•n •a!{a 
ar 
· 
The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
BANSRAJ 
(and connected appeal) 
(.TAFEB IMAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Motor Ve'/iicle-Driving in contravention of terms of permit-
Drioer, .if liable-Motor Vehicles Act (IV of r939), ss. 42(I) and 
r23. 
The respondents who were drivers, not being owners, were 
found driving motor vehicles in contravention of the terms of 
the permits granted under s. 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 
They were prosecuted and were convicted under s. r23 of the 
Act and sentenced to pay fine. The High Court held that under 
s. 42(1) it was the owner alone who was interdicted from using 
or permitting the use of the vehicle save in accordance with the 
conditions of the permit and that, accordingly, if the vehicle was 
used against the conditions of the permit only the owner, and no 
one else, including the driver, could be guilty of the contraven-
tion under s. r23. 
Held, that drivers of the motor vehicles were also liable 
under s. 123 of the Act for driving in contravention ·of the terms 
of the permits. Section 42(1) contemplates not only prohibition 
against the user by the owner of the vehicle or his permitting 
its user contrary to the conditions of the permit but it also 
contemplates that the vehicle itself shall be used only in the 
manner authorised by the permit. Section r23 penalises all 
20 
Octob•r 9. 
Tll1 Stale of 
Ult"'' Pr"'desh 
v. 
B11nsJ'tij 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. 
persons who drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor 
vehicle to be used or let out a motor vehicle to be used in con-
travention of the provisions of s. 42(1). 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 115/56 & 83/57. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated September 13, 19~5, of the Allahabad High 
Court in Criminal Reference No. 359 of 1952, arising 
out of the Reference dated August 4, 1952, by the 
Sessions Judge, Gorakpur, under section 438 of Crimi-
nal Procedure Code. 
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal for the appellant (In 
both the appeals). 
The respondent did not appear. 
1958. October 9. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
K•P•• J. 
KAPUR, J.-These two appeals involve a common 
question of law and may be disposed of by one judg-
ment. 
In Criminal Appeal No. 115/56 
the respondent 
Bansraj, driver of a public carrier, of which he was 
not an owner, was found carrying 23 passengers in-
stead of 6 allowed under the conditions of permit 
No. 42-926/123 granted to the owner. The vehicle was 
checked by a Head Constable who on counting the 
number of passengers found them to be 23. 
Bansraj 
respondent was prosecuted under s. 42 read with s. 123 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, (IV of 1939), as it existed 
at the date of the offence; (to be called the Act in this 
judgment). 
Bansraj respondent pleaded not guilty 
and stated that only six passengers were being carried. 
He was tried summarily by a First Class Magistrate 
at Gorakhpur and found guilty under s. 123 of the Act 
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default 
three months' rigorous imprisonment. 
He went in 
revision to the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, and there 
it was contended that he was only a driver and there-
fore could not be convicted under s. 123 of the Act. 
The learned Judge accepted that contention and being 
of the opinion that a mere driver could not be so con-
victed, he recommended the case to the High Court 
.• 
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
155 
under s. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
The 
matter came up as Criminal Reference No. 359/52 
before Mukherji J., who referred it to a Division Bench 
and was heard by Desai and Upadhya JJ. The inter-
pretation which the High Court put on s. 42(1) was 
that under the section it was the owner alone who 
was interdicted from using or permitting t.he use of.the 
vehicle save

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.