STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KANDASWAMI AND KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal, appeals, C.A. Nos. 1048 and 1051 of 1070, are directed by the learned Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of the District Magistrate, Salem, of the offences under Section 22 read with S. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The accused-Respondents in both these appeals are Kandaswami and Krishnan respectively. A common order would suffice in respect of the argument raised by the learned Public Prosecutor in both these appeals. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in terms of S. 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the cars that have been put to use for teaching driving may be interpreted as transport vehicles. Under S. 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, "Transport Vehicle" means a public service vehicle, or a goods vehicle. Under S. 2(25) of the Act, "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a motor cab contract carriage, and stage carriage. It is argued that when the accused-Respondents use their cars for the purpose of teaching driving for the benefit of some learners or persons and collect hire or reward, such cars would be deemed in law as public service vehicles within the meaning of S. 2(25) of the Act, in which case the owners of the cars used for driving purposes ought to get permits from the Regional or State Transport Authority. In other words, without permits, the accused-Respondents cannot put their cars to such use. There is an infirmity in this argument in the sense that a car put to the use of teaching driving cannot be brought under the definition of "public service vehicle". Firstly, there is no carriage of passengers. A person learning driving is not a passenger. A passenger has a definite destination, whereas a learner is at the command of the teacher, who takes the learner to a convenient place according to the circumstances. By no stretch of language, a learner in a car can be treated as "a passenger for hire or reward". This does not satisfy the ingredient of a learner being a passenger, in which case the cars in question owned by the accused-Respondents and put to use for teaching driving cannot be treated as "public service vehicles", so as to call them "transport vehicles". Therefore, S. 42(1) of the Act is not attracted on the proved facts in these cases. There are no merits in these two appeals. Criminal appeal Nos. 1018 and 1051 of 1970 are dismissed.