STATE OF MYSORE Vs. SYED IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal, by special leave, raises the question as to the true meaning of Section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939).

(2.) The respondent, the owner of a motor car bearing No. MYU-1089, carried 8 passengers in his said car on Nanjangud-Mysore Road on April 5, 1963 and collected Rs. 5 from each of them. He was charge-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 (1). The trial Magistrate did not go into the merits though the prosecution led evidence and acquitted him relying on the decision of the High Court of Mysore in Jayaram vs. State of Mysore, (1962) 40 Mys LJ 382. 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.

(3.) In B. S. Usman Saheb vs. State of Mysore, (1959) 37 Mys LJ 388 the question arose whether an owner of a motor car who had carried cement bags and other goods from one place to anther goods from 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 car 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 attract Section 42 (1). Likewise in (1962) 40 Mys LJ 382 the accused who had his motor vehicle registered as a motor car used it for carrying passengers for reward. The High Court held that the said vehicle having been registered as a motor car as defined by Section 2(16) was not " a transport vehicle" and no prosecution could lie under Section 42 (1). The State of Mysore challenges the correctness of these decisions contending that though a motor vehicle is registered as motor car, if it is used for a purpose set out in Section 42. (1), viz., carrying passengers for hire or reward the motor vehicle on that occasion must be said to have been used as a 'transport vehicle', and if so used without a permit, there would be a breach of that provision and the owner so using it or permitting it to be so used would be liable to be convicted.