Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 28 of 1952, decided on 19th February 1953, under section 417 of the Cr. P. C. against the order of the Sub‑Judge and Magistrate 1st Class, Loralai, dated the 15th May 1952.

Ss. 42, 123‑Driver of vehicle liable though it is owner's responsibility to take out road permit.

Although it may be the responsibility of the owner to obtain a permit, it does not absolve the driver of the vehicle from responsibility if such a vehicle is driven without the necessary permit.

A I R 1941 Mad. 845; A I R 1944 Nag. 89 ref.

Ss. 22, 38‑Apply to both owner and driver.

Sh. Muhammad Arif, Public Prosecutor for the Crown.

Accused‑Respondent in person.

‑This is an appeal by the Local Administration against the order of the Sub‑Judge and Magistrate 1st Class, Loralai, dated 15th May 1952, in which he has acquitted the accused‑respondent of offences under sections 38/112 and 94/125 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The facts of this case indicate that the accused‑respondent, who was a temporary driver employed by the owner for only a few days, was found driving the lorry in question without a road -permit, without a fitness certificate and without an Insurance certificate. He was therefore accordingly challenged under the sections mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order.

In dealing with section 42, Motor Vehicles Act, which relates to the issue of a permit, section 123 (i), Motor Vehicles Act, clearly stipulates that any person who drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of section 42, Motor Vehicles Act, is liable to punishment. The learned Magistrate, in his judgment, contends that the intention of section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to cover only the actual owner of the vehicle and not person who is employed to drive that vehicle. I cannot, however, subscribe to this view. The words "whoever drives" must be used in their widest interpretation and a paid driver is as much liable under this section as the owner of the vehicle. I am supported in this view by A I R 1941 Mad. 845 as also by A I R 1944 Nag. 89. Both these judgments make clear that although it may be the responsibility of the owner to obtain a permit, it does not absolve the driver of the vehicle from responsibility if such a vehicle is driven without the neces sary permit.

Similar arguments apply to the provisions of section 38 o the Motor Vehicles Act, which must be read in conjunction with section 22. Again, section 22, Motor Vehicles Act indicates that no person shall drive any vehicle unless it is registered. The words of this section are unambiguous and apply not only to the owner but also to any other person employed by him as a driver.

In regard to section 94, Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the views expressed by the learned Magistrate are correct. The explanation to this section is perfectly clear, in that it states that a person driving a vehicle as a paid employee is not liable for contravention of this particular section unless he knows or has reason to believe that no Insurance policy is in force. The explanation therefore places the onus of proof upon the prosecution to show that a driver challaned under this section either knew or bad reason to believe that no Insurance policy existed.

In the light of these circumstances, I accept the appeal in so far as sections 38 and 42, Motor Vehicles Act, are concerned and set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused respondent.

In taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, namely the accused‑respondent had only temporarily been employed for a few days. I do not attach great importance to the seriousness of the offences which he has committed. Accordingly I consider that it would be proper only to fine the accused Re. 1 under each section. I therefore order accordingly.

A. H Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.