LOCAL FUND OVERSEER Vs. PAKKIRISAMI THEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed on behalf of the District Board of Tanjore against the judgments of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Mayavaram acquitting the accused in each case of an offence punishable under Section 207(a) and Schedule VIII of the Local Boards Act. Under Section 166(1) of that Act No person shall, on any public road in a district, ply any motor vehicle for hire, or use any such vehicle for carrying passengers or goods at separate fares or rates on such road, except on a license obtained from the President of the District Board.

(2.) Under the further provisions mentioned above failure to obtain a license is punishable. In C.C: No. 179, to which Criminal Revision Case No. 101 relates, the complaint against the accused was that he committed the offence of plying a motor car, Tan. 234, for hire in the District Board Road No. 7-A, two trips, from Mayavaram to Tranquebar, without obtaining the license from the President, District Board, Tanjore.

(3.) The terms of the complaint in the other case, C.C. No. 200 of 1926, were similar. In the former case the prosecution adduced the evidence of a Local Fund Maistry stationed at Porayar, which we understand is adjacent to Tranquebar, to the effect that the accused's car used to come and stand in the hired car-stand there and obtain passengers. The Sub- Magistrate, we gather, has not accepted this evidence, but it is unnecessary for us to consider whether he should be supported in this finding because the evidence appears to be clearly inconsistent not only with the terms of the complaint but also with those of the question put to the accused. The case was tried as a summons case and he was asked to show cause why he should not be convicted upon a complaint that he had plied his motor car for hire from Mayavaram to Tranquebar on the 27th, 28 and 29 March, 1925 without obtaining a license. Although, however, the terms of the complaint were not supported by the prosecution evidence, a defence witness was examined who deposed that the accused was in the habit of letting out his car for hire to vakils, Mirasdars and others wishing to engage a car for a trip from Mayavaram. It may be taken, therefore, that the accused in this case admitted hiring out his car for journeys from Mayavaram. In the other case (C.C. No. 200) the question, put to the accused was in similar terms and the evidence was in consonance with it. In both the cases only the first portion of Section 166(1) would apply, because admittedly there is no proof that the vehicles were used for carrying passengers or goods at separate fares or rates. Accordingly the question we have to decide is whether a person who lets out his car for hire in Mayavaram, which is a Municipality, must obtain a license from the Tanjore District Board, if the car travels beyond the municipal limits and traverses any of the District Board roads. The argument of Sir K.V. Reddi for the District Board is that a vehicle plies for hire on a public road if it is made use of as a hired vehicle on that road, so that it is not a necessary condition that the actual hiring should take place upon that road. The alternative view is that the plying of a motor vehicle for hire means the act of waiting for soliciting custom, and that therefore so soon as any person has hired it the act of plying for hire is complete. If this be so, that act was committed, if at all within the Municipality of Mayavaram, and not within the District Board area, so that no license would be required from the District Board and these cases would fail.