(1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, for the quashing of conviction of the applicant Sultan Khan for the offence of Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, for contravention of Rule 81 -A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The applicant is the driver of a public service vehicle. It has been found that when the vehicle was checked by an inspector no complaint book was found in it. It is laid down in Rule 81 -A sub -rule (1) that "a complaint book ...... shall be maintained . . . . in every stage carriage to enable passengers to record any legitimate complaints in connection with the stage carriage service" and in sub -rule (4) that
(2.) THE rules do not provide for any punishment for their contravention. Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays clown that whoever Contravenes any rule made under the Act will be punished with a fine which may extend to Rs. 100/ -. Since no duty has been imposed upon any one by Rule 81 -A no one can be said to contravene it and nobody is liable to be punished under Section 112 if no complaint book is maintained in a stage carriage. There is no reason why the driver of a stage carriage should be selected for being punished for the non -maintenance of a complaint book and not the conductor or the owner, or the manager of the service or any one else.
(3.) RULE 78(1) of the Rules provides that "the driver and the conductor of a public service vehicle shall, as far 'as may be reasonably possible having regard to his duties, be responsible for the due observance of the provisions of ... these Rules". This rule is another example of the slipshod manner in which rules are made by the Government. It was the duty of the Government to use in the Rules words with clear and well -defined or well understood meaning so that those who are required to do an act or to abstain from doing an act left in no doubt about their obligation and about the penalty for failure to discharge it. Not only is the rule grammatically incorrect but also it does not make or convey any sense.