PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. G T KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the two respondents by the Sub-Magistrate of Udumalpet in C. C. Nos. 841, 842, 844, 846 and 960 of 1952 on his file.

(2.) THE first respondent in the above appeal is the owner of a tractor and trailer, M. D. C. No. 5727 and the second respondent is the driver. The vehicle was being driven on the public road in Udumalpet on 20-81952. When it was checked by the Motor Vehicle Taxation Sub-Inspector, it was found to carry manure. The vehicle had no permit as required by Section 42 (1), Motor Vehicles Act, Nor did it possess a fitness certificate as required by 6. 38 (1) of the Act. It was also found that the provincial tax for the quarter ending 30-8-1952 was not paid. These facts were and are not disputed. On the above facts the respondents were prosecuted for offences under Sections 38 (1) and 42 (1) read with Section 123, Motor Vehicles Act, and the first respondent was further' prosecuted for an offence under Section 7, Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, as he allowed the vehicle to run without paying the tax.

(3.) FOR the offence under Section 7, Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, that is, for not paying the quarterly tax, the lower Court found that it was carrying only manure which was for agricultural purposes and therefore under Section 11a, the first respondent need mot pay the tax and acquitted him of the offence. For offences under Sections 38 (1) and 42 (1), Motor Vehicles Act, the lower Court found that the vehicle in question is not a transport vehicle and therefore no permit or fitness certificate was necessary, and therefore, acquitted the respondents of the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act as well. It is against the acquittal that the State has preferred this appeal.