LAWS(MPH)-1962-10-16

STATE Vs. BUNDELKHAND TRANSPORT CO.

Decided On October 24, 1962
STATE Appellant
V/S
Bundelkhand Transport Co. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE non -applicant (accused), Bundelkhand Transport Company, was convicted by the Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur, under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for committing breaches of rules 111 and 147 -A of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under the Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25 or, in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five days on each count. On revision, the Sessions Judge, Chhatarapur, has reported the case to this Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that the conviction and sentences of the non applicant (accused) be set aside, inter alia, on the ground that even if it had been established that there was no first -aid -box containing all the prescribed articles and no speedometer in working order when the vehicle was checked, there could be no culpable breach of the Rules because the contents of the first -aid box could be removed and the speedometer could get out of order in the course of the journey without the owner of the vehicle coming to know of it; and consequently unless it were proved that the vehicle had no first -aid -box and a speedometer in working order when it started on its journey, the owner could not be liable for any breach of the said Rules. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, unless there was carelessness, negligence or mensrea on the part of the owner a conviction under section 112 of the Act was not permissible.

(2.) IN my opinion, the reference is misconceived.

(3.) IT is common ground that at the time the vehicle was checked its speedometer was not functioning and it did not contain a first -aid -box no. 3 complete in all respects as required by the Rules. There was thus a breach of rules 111 and 147 -A ibid. The question then is whether the non -applicant, which is the owner of the vehicle, can be held liable for the breach.