IN RE: VAJRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ami, of an offence punishable under R. 47 -A(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules read with S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Rule 162, read with S. 112 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/ - under each count, in default to undergo S.I. for one week under each count. The conviction to an offence under Rule 162 read with S. 112 of the Act and the sentences meted out for that offence have been confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of North Arcot at Vellore.

(2.) THE charge against the accused was that on 5th February 1975 at about 4.30 P.M. on the Arni -Vellore Road when the Sub -Inspector of Police stopped and checked the bus M. D. J. 4024 which the accused was driving, it was noticed that the permit and the registration certificate were not available in the vehicle and further the accused was not in proper uniform. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 the Sub Inspector of Police, in support of the aforesaid accusation. The accused denied the offence, but did not adduce any evidence on his side.

(3.) NOW , in regard to the allegation that the permit and registration certificate were not available in the bus, there is the evidence of P.W. 1 to that effect and P.W. 1, states that the accused when asked to produce them said they were not available. But then, under Sub -section (2) of S. 86 of the Act it is only on demand by a person duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government that the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle is required to produce the certificate of registration and the certificate of fitness. Rule 162 also mentions that the demand shall be by any authorised person. In the absence of any evidence to show that P.W. 1 was in uniform and in the absence of any evidence to show that he was an authorised person, it cannot be said that the ingredients of an offence under S. 86(2) read with S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been made out. When an offence is alleged against any person, it is for the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence. In the instant case, one of the ingredients is that the demand should be by an authorised person and in the absence of any evidence to show that P.W. 1, was an authorised person it cannot be said that this important ingredient of an offence under S. 86(2) of the Act, read with rule 162 of the Rules and with S. 112 of the Act has been made out. Hence, I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction of the revision petitioner of an offence under S. 86(2) of the Act, read with rule 162 of the Rules and with S. 112 of the Act and acquit him of that offence and the fine amount, if paid by him, may be refunded.