STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. UTTAMRAO G KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by the Public prosecutor by and on behalf of the State Government challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge, ratnagiri dated 21st March, 1992 passed in Revision, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the issue of process against respondent herein. The allegation in the complaint filed by Asst. R. T. O. Ratnagiri is that certain rubber materials belonging to Maharashtra State Transport corporation (S. T. Depot Bombay) was being carried in a jeep belonging to the State Corporation without obtaining necessary permission under section 56 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and the respondent has allowed the said illegal activities. The said jeep was not having any fitness certificate as envisaged under provisions of M. V. Act. Therefore, it is alleged that he committed offence under section 56 of the M. V. Act. The Revisional Court found that he was doing official duty and the goods belonging to S. T. department and being transported in the jeep. Though the jeep does not have the required fitness certificate as envisaged under the provision of the M. V. Act. On that ground the Revision Court quashed the proceedings.

(2.) I heard Public Prosecutor Shri Shinde. No representation on behalf of the respondent. Though I cannot agree with the reasoning stated by the Revision Court in quashing the proceedings, I find that the said complaint is not maintainable against the respondent because admittedly the respondent is officer of the Maharashtra State Transport corporation and it is alleged that he who gave permission to the driver of vehicle No. MTJ/6729 to transport the goods when the jeep was not in a fit condition to ply it on the public road. It lacks fitness certificate as envisaged under the M. V. Act. It is the duty of the owner under the provisions of sections 39 and 66 of the M. V. Act, to see that the vehicles are properly maintained and fitness certificate has to be obtained at appropriate time from the transport authorities. There is no material before the court that respondent is owner of the vehicle. The allegation in the complaint shows that he is the officer of the Road transport Corporation. In the absence of any material to prove that the respondent is the owner of the vehicle, he cannot be implicated for the offence of violation of the provisions of section 142 of the M. V. Act.

(3.) IN view of this, though the reasoning stated by the sessions Court for quashing the proceedings based on the irrelevant grounds, in the light of the facts stated above, i find no reason to maintain the said complaint against the respondent.