STATE Vs. P M VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought on behalf of the State from the order of acquittal made by the Stationary First Class Magistrate of Moovattupuzha in C.C. No. 744 of 1124 on the file of his court. The complainant was P.C. 355 N. Chellappen Pillai attached to the Moovattupuzha Police Station. The accused P.M. Varkey was driving a motor lorry loaded with tiles. The charge against him was that he had committed an offence under S. 107 read with S.83(1)(a) of the Travancore Motor Vehicles Act, I of 1117. The Trial Court acquitted the accused under S.242(1) of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code. On behalf of the State it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the court below erred in acquitting the accused in view of the provisions of S.83(1)(a) of the Travancore Motor Vehicles Act, I of 1117.

(2.) To appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the State and of the accused respondent, it is necessary to set forth briefly the facts of the case which are as follows: At about 2.20 P.M. on 5.7.1124 the accused was driving a motor lorry bearing index No. MSTR 6173 through the Main Central Road in Moovattupuzha. P.C. 355 attached to the Moovattupuzha Police Station was at that time standing before the motor checking station at Moovattupuzha. His complaint is that he signalled to the accused to stop the vehicle by lifting up his arm and that the latter failed to obey that order.

(3.) At the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Trial Court relied upon the provisions of R.223 of the Rules made under the Travancore Motor Vehicles Act, 1117 according to which the driver of a goods vehicle cannot be called upon to stop by a police constable. It is only a police officer not below the rank of a Head Constable that can stop and inspect the goods in the vehicle. Because the complainant whose signal to stop was not obeyed by the accused was below the rank of a Head Constable, the lower court held that no offence was committed by the accused.