INDRA MOHAN ROY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a motor bus which was on a certain day driven by a person who had no license to drive. The petitioner has thereupon been convicted under Section 16. Motor Vehicles Act (8 of 1914) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 and an order has been made under Section 18 of the Act canceling his license for a period of six months. This rule is directed against the said conviction, sentence and order.

(2.) The petitioner's defence was that seven or eight days before the date of the occurrence he had left for home leaving the bus in charge of his licensed driver and that ha was not liable if any unlicensed person drove the bus during his absence and without his knowledge. There was a further defence that the licensed driver was on the bus but it has been disbelieved. The licensed driver Krishna was examined as a Court witness. He said that on the day in question, he went away to take his meals asking one Shyam Lal Das to act as driver but as a matter of fact one Nalini who had no license has driven it. He said further that the-petitioner had gone home some days before the date of the occurrence. He also said that Nalini was the manager of the bus and used to accompany him on the bus. There is a further statement in the cross- examination of this witness by the defence which runs in these words: The bus was in charge of Nalini and not o? myself.

(3.) It is not clear whether by this the witness meant to deny the allegation of the petitioner that he had left for home leaving the bus in charge of the witness; but as the Magistrate has not stated anything about this matter in his judgment I think it is fair to proceed on the supposition that this allegation of the petitioner has not been disproved. In that view the question that arises is whether the petitioner is punishable for the fact that he bus was driven, though without his knowledge and without his consent express or implied, by a person who is not a licensed driver.