VAYODHYARAMAN Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17th December, 1958 passed by the City Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Case No. 2240 of 1958 convicting the petitioner for an offence under S. 72(3) read with Section 124 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate has further directed that the fact of the conviction of the petitioner should be endorsed on the registration certificate.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner V. Ayodhyaraman is the owner of the lorry bearing Number MYF 3286. The said lorry was being driven not by the petitioner but by his driver by name Alfred John. On 5-3-1958 at about 7-30 P. M. the lorry referred to above was being driven by Alfred John in Arcot Srinivasachar's street when the same was loaded with some goods and was checked by the Police Officers. It was found that the lorry had been loaded in excess by two tone, two Cwts 1 quarter over the permitted weight. A charge-sheet was accordingly placed against the driver before the City Magistrate, Bangalore. The driver pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced. Subsequently the police placed a charge-sheet against the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle for an offence punishable under S. 72(3) read with S. 124 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that he had allowed his driver Alfred John to use the vehicle in contravention of the conditions of the permit, namely to overload that same in the Court of the City Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioner pleaded not guilty; he contended that he had no idea that his driver had overloaded the vehicle; that the vehicle with the goods in it had come from Salem and that even before it came to his place it had been checked by the Police Officers on its way to his place and the driver had been convicted and in the circumstance he cannot be held liable for an offence under Section 72(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. His contention in other words was that he had no knowledge that his driver filled the vehicle with goods in excess of the permitted weight and that he had no reasonable opportunity to know it in any manner and cannot, therefore, be convicted for an offence under S. 72(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention the petitioner got the booking goods vehicle record marked as an Exhibit in the case to indicate that according to the entry made in Exhibit D1(a) relating to the particulars of the goods conveyed in the vehicle the driver had only mentioned four tons of goods in it and that it was within the permitted limits that the vehicle could be loaded. The learned Magistrate rejected the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner. The question as to whether mens rea is a necessary element of an offence under S. 72(3)(b) of the Act and whether it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the vehicle had been overloaded before he could be convicted under S. 72(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act arises for consideration in this case. According to the learned Magistrate mens rea is not a necessary element of an offence and all that the prosecution had to establish is that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle. If that was done the petitioner was vicariously liable for criminal act or acts committed by his driver who was in charge of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate observed in the course of his judgment that the terms "causes" or "allows" used in S. 72(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act indicate passive acquiescence and both of them were punishable and, therefore, the petitioner as the owner who had the benefit out of the illegal act of the driver was liable under S. 72(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. It is the legality of this order that is now challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition.

(3.) Section 72 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :