A VISWANADHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of a motor-truck bearing registration No. M. P. O. 61.

(2.) P. W. 2 is the traffic inspector in the district of Koraput. On 22-5-62 he found the said truck M. P. O. 61, plying in the district without a valid route permit and also without payment of tax for the relevant period, i. e. for the second quarter ending on 30-6-62. On demand, the driver of the vehicle could not also produce the registration certificate, or the fitness certificate or even his own driving license. Thereafter P. W. 2 submitted a prosecution report against the driver as also the owner of the vehicle for offences under Sections 112, 123 of the Motor Vehicles act and under Section 7 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

(3.) AT the trial, the accused persons denied that the vehicle was plied that day and also stated that there was no such check by P. W. 2 as claimed by him. They also filed two documents, Exts. A and B. One is a certified copy of a receipt dated 15-563 granted by the Traffic Inspector and the other is a receipt granted by the State transport Authority. These two documents are of no help to the defence since none of them shows that the accused had either a valid permit to ply the vehicle in the district of Koraput on 25-5-62 or that the tax for the vehicle was paid for the second quarter of 1962.