EMPEROR Vs. SUBHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mirzapur recommending that the conviction of Subhani under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. 8 of 1914) for contravening Rules 79 and 81, U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules of 1928 by a Magistrate of the First Class be quashed and that the fine paid by Subhani be refunded to Mm. The facts found by the learned Magistrate are that lorry No. 94 was driven on the Chilh-Gopiganj Road by. one Niaz Ahmad and that Subhani accused was in charge of the lorry. The permit that was granted to the owner of the lorry accorded permission for the lorry in question to ply within the Bhadohi district and the road on which the lorry was permitted to ply was also specified in the permit in the following words: "State portion of the road from Bhadohi to Chilh. "The Chilh-Gopiganj Road on which the lorry was being driven by Niaz Ahmad was not specified in the permit. The maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of goods which could be carried on lorry in question were not as enjoined by Rule 81 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1928, specified in the permit. It is further to be noted that the permit was not in the revised form given in Schedule F. of the above mentioned rules.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that as the lorry was driven on a road that was not specified in the permit there was a violation of Rule 79 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and that as greater number of passengers than could be taken in the lorry were found in lorry Rule 81 was also violated. The learned Magistrate, as already stated, accepted the case for the prosecution. He has now however while submitting his explanation to this Court, admitted that, in view of the omission in the permit to specify the maximum number of passengers that could be carried in the lorry, the conviction for contravening Rule 81 is bad in law. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate on the point and quash the conviction of Subhani for violating Rule 81 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and direct that the fine imposed for that offence be refunded to him.

(3.) It now remains to consider the propriety or otherwise of the conviction of Subhani for contravening Rule 79 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1928. Section 10(1), Motor Vehicles Act, provides that "the owner of every motor vehicle shall cause it to be registered in the prescribed manner, and that the registration shall be valid in such area as may be specified in the certificate of registration. The words "motor vehicle" include a lorry, a motor bus, a motor cab etc., (vide Section 2 of the Act). The word "prescribed" is also defined as meaning "prescribed by rules under this Act." The U.P. Motor Vehicles, Rules, 1928, have been framed by the Local Government in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 11 of the Act and the rules so framed have the force of law (vide Section 11(3) of the Act). Rule 75 of the Rules framed by the Local Government provides that "a motor vehicle shall not be used as a public motor vehicle unless it has been registered as such." The application for registration is to be in the form prescribed by Schedule A of the Rules. The application must specify inter alia, in the case of motor cabs, "the area within which the vehicle will ply" and in the case of a motor bus or a motor lorry " the route on which the vehicle will ply" (vide serial Nos. 17 and 18 of Schedule A).