KURIAN MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was prosecuted by P.W.3, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjar under S.112, Motor Vehicles Act in that on April 29, 1973, at about 9.50 A.M. he travelled on the footboard of a bus KLK 7047, contrary to R.257(1)(g) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which provides that a passenger shall not "travel on the top of the vehicle or in or on any part of the vehicle not provided for the conveyance of passengers." The petitioner's defence was that he was not travelling on the foot-board and that the case was trumped up against him as he refused to be a witness for the prosecution in the case charge sheeted by P.W.3 against the Conductor of the bus. In support of this defence he examined D.Ws. 1 and 2. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of P.W.3 which was corroborated by P.W.2 and rejecting D.Ws. 1 and 2 it held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to simple imprisonment of 7 days. On appeal the Chief Judicial Magistrate confirmed the conviction but considering the circumstances of the case set aside the sentence and released the petitioner on admonition.

(2.) In support of the revision, Mr. Thomas V. Jacob contends that traveling on a footboard does not contravene R.257(1)(g) as footboard is not a part of the vehicle not provided for the conveyance of passengers; indeed in positive terms he contends that it is a part of the vehicle provided for the conveyance of passengers. He maintains that as 'foot-board' is not expressly excluded like "the top of the vehicle" it is permissible to travel on the footboard. This last contention can be shortly dismissed for although the earlier part of the clause specifically mentions "top of the vehicle" the prohibition applies to every other "part of the vehicle not provided for the conveyance of passengers". The question at issue therefore is whether footboard is a part of the vehicle "not provided for the conveyance of passengers". My attention was not drawn to any rule which uses the expression 'footboard' but reading R.311 (which provides for entrance and exit for the vehicle) and R.313 (which provides for steps at the entrance and exit) there can be no doubt that the expression 'footboard' means these steps at the entrance and exit. This is an arrangement for passengers to get into or get out of the vehicle and is not provided for the conveyance of passengers any more than the top of the vehicle or the mudguard. The suggestion that passengers are entitled to travel standing on these steps is plainly without merit as they have no general right to travel sitting or standing in any part of the Vehicle but only a right to travel in those parts provided for their conveyance. It was however contended that R.300(2) which deals with the standing capacity of the vehicle does not define the part or place where the standing passengers are to remain and that this by implication permits them to travel standing on the footboard. But this begs the question for what is relevant is whether the footboard is a provision for the conveyance of passengers. Further the provision in R.312 that "A Grab rail shall be fitted to every entrance or exit of a vehicle, other than an emergency exit of a vehicle. An overhead grab rail with or without hanger straps shall also be provided within the body for standing passengers to hold on" clearly implies different provisions for the two purposes one for entering or alighting from the vehicle and the other for travel standing. The footboards at the places of entrance and exit are provided for the purpose of entry and exit and not "for the conveyance of passengers". I reject the contention of the petitioner.

(3.) The revision is dismissed.