EMPEROR Vs. SHANTARAM RAMA WADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the accused asking us to set aside his conviction by the Second Glass Magistrate of Vengurla under Section 6 of the Motor Vechicles Act, VIII of 1914.

(2.) The facts are that the accused is the owner of a motor car and his driver has a license to drive within the Savantwadi State. On April 30, the driver drove the car beyond the limits of that State in British India and he was charged, therefore, under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act with driving the car beyond the limits of the license. The driver was convicted and no question arises as to his conviction. The present accused as the owner was also convicted under the provision of Section 6 that no owner of a motor vehicle shall allow any person who is not so licensed to drive the car,

(3.) There is no evidence that the accused knew that his driver was going to take the car beyond the limits of the Savantwadi State or that he in any way authorised that act. The learned District Magistrate in the lower appellate Court holds that the accused is liable because he says that the word " allow " in Section 6 of the Act means " did not prevent ". That is certainly not the ordinary meaning of the word " allow." Nobody, for instance, would say that a man had "allowed" his wife to commit adultery merely because he had not prevented that occurence, and I see no reason for supposing that the word " allow" is used in this Act in any but its ordinary sense. The word is used not only in Section 6, but also in Section 7, which provides that the holder of a license shall not allow it to be used by any other person. I should say that if a license was stolen by a thief and improperly used by him, it could not be said that the holder of the license had allowed it to be used by the thief, although he had not prevented it being so used. I think that the word " allow" ordinarily involves permission express or implied, and that it is used in that sense is Section 6 of this Act, Evidence of express permission to use a car beyond the terms of the license would no doubt generally be lacking. But permission may be implied from the facts. In the present case there is, however, no evidence at all from which, as it seems to me, we can infer any sort of permission, because there is no evidence that the car had ever been used in this way before, and there is no evidence that the accused knew that it was going to be used in this way on the present occasion.