JAGROOP Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, who are a driver and a conductor of lorry owned by one Raj Kishore Verma, have been convicted under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 79 (8), Motor Vehicles Rules, for carrying 52 passengers as against the prescribed maximum of 40, under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Act for not issuing tickets to passengers and under Section 112 read with Rule 162 for not equipping the lorry with a fire extinguisher. On appeal the conviction of the conductor under Section 42 read with Section 123 was quashed; the other convictions and sentences were maintained.

(2.) The only evidence produced in the case is that of the enforcement squad inspector and the head constable working under him. They deposed that there were 62 passengers in the lorry that there was no fire extinguisher and that the passengers stated that they were not given tickets. Neither the permit nor the registration certificate which must have been in the possession of the applicants had been produced in the Court. The applicants denied all the charges and produced a witness in defence who was disbelieved by the Courts below. They found, as matters of fact, that there were 52 passengers, whereas the lorry was permitted to carry only 40 passengers, that no tickets were issued to the passengers and that there was no fire-extinguisher in the lorry.

(3.) Under Rule 79 (VIII) it is the duty of the driver and the conductor of a public service vehicle, as the lorry in question was, to see that no person was carried in it in excess of the seating capacity specified in the certificate of registration and of additional number permitted under the terms of the permit to be carried standing in it. Anybody who contravenes a provision of any rule is punishable under Section 112 of the Act. The registration certificate and the permit were in the possession of the applicants; under the rules they were bound to keep them with them in the lory. When they were prosecuted for committing a breach of the conditions of the certificate and the permit they must have known that they were required to be produced in evidence. They did not care to produce them in Court and the prosecution was entitled to produce secondary evidence. Consequently, the inspector could give secondary evidence to prove that under the conditions of the registration certificate and the permit the lorry could not carry more than 40 passengers. The applicants themselves did not deny, when they were examined by the trial Court, that the maximum number of passengers that they could carry was 40. What they denied was that they exceeded this number. There was thus legally admissible evidence before the trial Court to enable it to come to the finding that the applicants carried 52 passengers as against the prescribed maximum of 40. On that finding they were bound to be convicted under Section 112.