STATE Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals relate to a matter in which the prosecution was for driving the truck No. RJP 479 on 17th July, 1958, at about 9 P. M. , in the town of Malsisar with out permit required under Section 42 (1) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The truck No. RJP 479 was a public-carrier vehicle owned by Sita Ram accused and on that night it was driven by Bhagwan Singh accused. The police constable Shri Goduram who was at the police station Malsisar stopped the truck on the main road and informed Phul Singh constable, who examined it. The said constable found that the truck had no permit as required under Section 42 (1) of the Act. Two other deficiencies were noticed; one was that there was no horn on the truck and the other was that the driver was unable to produce the certificate of insurance when Phul Singh had demanded it from him. Phul Singh reported the matter to the Station House Officer, Police Station malsisar and a complaint was filed in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Jhun-Jhunu, by the said officer against Sita Ram and Bhagwan Singh under Section 42 (1) read with 123 of the Act, Section 125 read with 94, Section 112 and Rule 156 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter called the Rules ). The learned Magistrate held that the aforesaid truck was stopped and inspected as alleged by the prosecution on 17th July, 1958, at 9 P. M. He convicted Sita Ram the owner of the truck under Section 123 read with Section 42 (1) of the Act and in view of the fact that the said Sita Ram had been fined previously under that section he imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on him ordering that in default of the payment of fine Sita Ram shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. No order was passed with respect to this offence as against Bhagwan Singh the driver of the truck, The driver, however, was convicted under Section 125 read with section 94 of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Sitaram was also convicted and sentenced to pay a like amount for that offence; in default of payment of fine it was ordered that the defaulter shall undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. No finding was given with regard to the horn by the learned Magistrate. Against this order of the Magistrate an appeal was filed by Bhagwan Singh and sita Ram before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, challenging their convictions. The learned Sessions Judge held that it was not proved that Sita Ram had the knowledge of the use of the vehicle by Bhagwan Singh and in the absence of such proof he could not be convicted under Section 123 read with Section 94 (1) of the act. The learned Sessions Judge also pointed cut that the Magistrate was wrong to put his personal knowledge of conviction of Sita Ram under Section 123 of the Act and sentence him to an enhanced fine. In this view of the matter the learned sessions Judge set aside the conviction of Sita Ram under Section 123 read with section 42 (1) of the Act. He also set aside the conviction of Sita Ram and bhagwan Singh under Section 125 read with Section 94 of the Act on the ground that Phul Singn had no authority to demand the production of insurance certificate from Bhagwan Singh. The learned Sessions Judge refused to convict Bhagwan singh under Section 123 read with Section 42 (1) of the Act as this could be done only in an appeal by the State by the High Court.

(2.) AS there was limitation for filing an appeal by the State against Bhagwan Singh against the implied order of acquittal under Section 123 read with Section 42 (1)of the Act, the State has filed the appeal No. 247/1959- State v. Bhagwan Singh. Another appeal has been filed by the State against the order of the Sessions judge, acquitting Site Ram under Section 123 read with Section 42 (1) of the Act and Section 125 read with Section 94 of the Act and against the acquittal of bhagwan Singh under Section 125 read with Section 94 of the Act. At the time of the argument Mr. Amrit Raj did not press for the conviction of Bhagwan Singh and Sita Ram under Section 125 read with 94 of the Act but he argued that both Bhagwan Singh and Sita Ram should, be convicted under Section 123 read with 42 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the accused has urged that it was not proved by the evidence on record that the vehicle did not carry Part B of the road permit on it. He has pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has given no definite finding on this matter and the prosecution evidence was very meagre on this point. It is conceded that in view of the authority of State of Uttar pradesh v. Bans Raj, AIR 1959 SC 79, Bhagwan Singh could be convicted under section 123 read with Section 42 (1) at the Act if it is held that there was no road permit ot the vehicle. But it is urged that Sita Ram who was the owner of the vehicle was rightly acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge as it was not proved by the evidence on record that he had allowed the use of the vehicle.

(3.) SO far as the question of fact is concerned we find that Phul Singh has definitely stated that there was no road permit of the truck when he inspected the truck. Under Rule 84 (c) it is the duty of the holder of a permit to cause the relevant copy of Part B thereof to be carried in a glazed frame or other suitable container carried in or affixed to the Interior of the vehicle In such a way as to maintain it in a clean and legible condition readily available for Inspection at any time by any authorised person. It is this document which Phul Singh did not find In the truck. The accused did not plead that they had any valid road permit for the-truck. Under these circumstances the statement of Phul Singh may be relied on for the purpose of holding that there was no valid road permit in the truck as required under Section 42 (1) of the Act.