STATE Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Government against the acquittal of the accused Ramchandra on a charge Under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that Ram Chandra accused was driving a motor truck No, RJR 489 near cinema at Kotah on 31-51952. Tika Ram Traffic Constable No. 713, stopped the truck and asked Ramchandra to produce the token of payment of tax as also the permit for the transport vehicle. Rarnchandra failed to produce the two, and a challan was presented against him for an offence Under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the trial Ramchandra admitted that he had not with him at the time when checked by Tikaram either the token of the payment of lax or the permit. He, however, produced the two in Court as Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. The learned Magistrate found that the token Ex. D. 2 did not relate to truck No. RJR 489 in dispute, but to No. 203 RJR. As regards the permit Ex. D. 1, he was of opinion that it had expired on 30-51952, and it was not clear whether it related to RJR 489 or lo RJR 203. He accordingly convicted Rarnchandra Under Section 123 of the the Motor Vehicles Act on a charge of driving truck No. 489 RJR without having a valid permit for the same. An appeal was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, and he was of opinion that Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act only made a Contravention of Section 42 of the Act punishble, and Section 42 only applied to the owner of a transport vehicle, and, therefore, Ramchandra, who was not an owner of the transport vehicle, but was driving the same, could not be punished Under Section 123 of the Act.

(3.) THE view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is no doubt erroneous. Section 42 prohibits only an owner from using a transport vehicle or permitting the use of the vehicle in any public place without a permit. But Section 123 applies not only to the owner, but also to a driver of a motor vehicle for contravening the provisions of Section 42. If the contravention of Section 42 be only referred to as applicable to the owner, the opening words of Section 123 become meaningless. The proper interpretation of Section 123 would be that it makes punishable the driver of a motor vehicle or any person who causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used or lets out a motor vehicle for use without permit or contrary to the conditions of the permit. A driver of a transport vehicle thus commits an offence if he drives the transport vehicle without permit or contrary to the conditions of the permit. The same view has been taken by a Single Bench of this Court in Kalyanlal v. The State and we agree with the view taken in that case. The learned Magistrate has, however, committed an error in finding that there was no valid permit for the vehicle. The copy issued by the District Magistrate, which is on the record shows that the permit was a temporary one, and was in respect of R J R 489, and the date of expiry was 30-6-1952. There is mention in column 4 as to the type of vehicle that it related to R J R 489, with the addition of the figures and word "203 (New)," which meant that the new number of the vehicle was 203 RJR. The document produced by the accused, therefore, shows that there was a valid permit for the vehicle when the accused was accosted.