EMPEROR Vs. NASARVANJI BOMANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 438 of the Criminal P. C. by the Sessions Judge of Poona in the matter of the conviction of one Naservanji Bomanji by the Cantonment Magistrate of Poona under Section 22 of Bombay Act VII of 1920.

(2.) The offence charged was that the accused had let his tonga for hire without a license. It would appear from the judgment that the only evidence against the accused was that a Lieut. Flitcroft was found driving in a tonga belonging to the accused and that he stated that he had hired it several times before. The accused said that he had three conveyances which he hired out to such persons as he wished, but contended that they did not become by reason of such user public conveyances. The learned Magistrate had no doubt that the tonga was a public conveyance and required a license, but he ignored entirely the definition of a public conveyance in Section 2 of the Act and based his opinion on grounds which can only be considered irrelevant.

(3.) Under the Act a public conveyance is a vehicle which is used for the purpose of plying for hire for the conveyance of passengers and goods.