ISHARDAS AND CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act') is a consolidating and amending Act relating to motor vehicles. Under Cl.18 of S.2 of the Act, "motor vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. Cl.(33) of S.2 defines "transport vehicle" to mean a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle, and S.22 makes it obligatory upon the owner to obtain a certificate of registration before causing or permitting the vehicle to be driven in any public place. In addition to the requirement of a certificate of registration, S.38 further prescribes that a transport vehicle should, in addition, carry a certificate of fitness in Form 'H' as set forth in the First Schedule.

(2.) Even though a vehicle which is not a transport vehicle does not ordinarily require a certificate of fitness as prescribed by S. 38 R.202A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, ('Rules') enjoins upon the owner of the motor vehicle which is older than 20 years from the date of its first registration to apply to the registering authority every year for periodical testing and inspection of the vehicles, A breach of Rule 202A constitutes an offence punishable under S. 112 of the Act.

(3.) Messrs. Ishardas and Sons, a partnership firm, owned a mobile crane No. 3039 which has been registered with the Regional Transport Authorities, as a non-transport vehicle. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Regional Transport Office, Bombay, filed a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, alleging that the owner of the crane has contravened the provisions of Rule 202A which is punishable under S.112 of the Act upon which the learned Magistrate ordered issue of process. Though a perusal of the complaint does not contain enough narration of facts, but only a recital of various sections of the Act, it is common ground that the owner did not possess the requisite certificate of fitness which he should have obtained after producing the vehicle for inspection and testing as required under R. 202A.