RUPCHAND FOMRA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revision cases are by one or the other member of the Fomora family or firm and substantially relate to the same question. These petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE several petitioners purchased motor cars in their individual names and hired them to the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. for stated periods stipulating a fixed monthly rent. The cars were to be used in public places; but neither. permits nor fitness certificates had been obtained for any of them. Each of the petitioners was, therefore, charged firstly tinder ejection 38 (1) and secondly under Section 42 (1) both read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(3.) UNDER Section 33 (1), no transport vehicle could be deemed to be validly registered unless it carried a certificate of fitness in form (H) as set forth in the first schedule to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Ch. (v) and the rules made thereunder. Section 4211) prohibits the owner of a transport vehicle using or permitting the use of such vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by. a Regional or State Transport authority or the Commission authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which that vehicle is being used. Section 112 is the penal section, and imposes on the contraveners of any of the provisions of the Act or rules made under the Act a fine of Rs. 100 for the first offence and Rs. 300 if he is again convicted of an offence under the Act