HASAN AHMAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the convictions and sentences passed in this case cannot possibly be upheld. The Magistrate has convicted the applicant on what he styles as two different charges under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. One charge appears in the judgment to be failure to produce his license upon demand by a police constable, contrary to Section 8, and the second charge appears to be driving a motor vehicle in an area for which his license was not available, contrary to the provisions of Section 9.

(2.) But when I come to examine the record in order to ascertain exactly with what offences and under what sections the applicant was charged in the trial of the case, I find that he was charged with quite different offences. The summons issued to him under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, was defective, since it omitted to specify the sections of the act or rules made thereunder, for breach of which the applicant was being prosecuted. The seriousness of this defect has been recently stressed by the Hon ble High Court in Emperor V/s. Rananjai Singh . When the applicant appeared in Court, he was tried summarily. The record shows that the police report Ex. 1 was read over to him as containing the offence for which he was charged, and that he pleaded not guilty. The document Ex. 1 is the police charge-sheet, and the offence committed by the applicant are set out therein as follows: Mulzim Khana No. 7 appni motor lorry No. 13 sarak Sadabad Janib Baldeo sawariyan bithlaye hue Muthrako ja raha tha. Ijazat nama chalane sarak Sadabad talab kiya gaya to nam burda ne kaha ki hamare pas nahin hai. Chunki yah fail namburda ka dafai 16 Act Motor ki had tah pahunchta hai, lihaza nahsha charge-sheet murattab harke bagarz qaimi jurm ijlas jaba janab hakim pargana Sahib Sadabad, irsel hai. Is shakhs ne is sarak per motor chalane ki ijazat hasil nakin hi hai, khilaf sharait license jurm kiya hai.

(3.) Now from this police report, it is clear that the police took the view that the applicant was not entitled to drive his motor vehicle on the Muttra Sadabad road, without some form of special permit. They were prosecuting him for driving on this route without a permit, or in the alternative for failure to produce his permit, if any such permit existed.