TEJA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for decision in the present case is whether a person who drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the conditions of a permit issued by the appropriate authority contravenes the provisions of Section 42, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) Teja Singh, a driver of the Krishana Bus Service Ltd. Delhi, who was carrying eleven maunds of vegetables in a transport vehicle in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4.17 of the Motor Vehicles Act was convicted under Sections 42/123 of the said Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. He filed a revision petition in the Sessions Court at Rohtak and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recommended that the conviction of the petitioner should be set aside on the ground that he did not drive his motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of Section 42, Motor Vehicles Act. The question is whether the Court below has come to a correct determination in point of law,

(3.) Section 42, Motor Vehicles Act, provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or Provincial Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Then follow three provisos which are not relevant to the decision of this case. Section 123 enacts that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used or lets out a motor vehicle for use in contravention of the provision Section 42 (1) shall be liable to such punishment as is mentioned in the section. 'Prirna facie' Section 42 is designed to punish the owner of a transport vehicle who uses or permits the use of the vehicle in contravention of the conditions of the permit while Section 123 is designed to punish the person who drives or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be useli in contravention of the conditions ot the permit. The learned Single Judge who recorded the Judgment in the case of 'Jagrup v. Rex', 4 DLR (All) 241 appears to have taken a contrary view. He observes that Section 42 prohibits the owner alone and nobody else such as the driver or conductor from- using or permitting the use of a vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of the permit and consequently if a transport vehicle is used against the conditions of the permit, only the owner and nobody else can be guilty of contravening this provision. This being so, the learned judge observes, it is meaningless to speak of somebody driving a vehicle in contravention of the provision that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle against the conditions of the permit.