SHROFF VEERAPPA Vs. NAWAB SHIYA-UL-MULK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assistant Engineer, Kurnool, under the authority of the President, District Board, Kurnool, filed a complaint against the owner and driver, respectively, of Bus No. K. U. 62, alleging that they,had committed an offence by using that bus on the 15 October, 1928, for carrying passengers at separate fares on the Chittoor-Kurnool road without the District Board's licence, an offence coming within the purview of Section 166(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920 and punishable under Section 207 of that Act. The complaint was presented to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kurnool. He recorded the complainant's sworn statement, and holding that the act complained of was not "plying a bus for hire" and that the contracts with the passengers had been entered into within the limits of the Kurnool Municipality and not within the limits of the jurisdiction of the District Board, decided that, upon the allegations made, there had been no contravention of Section 166(1) of the Local Boards Act. He, therefore, dismissed the complaint. A petition for revision was presented to the Sessions Court, Kurnool Division, by the complainant against the order, and the Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate and directed the District Magistrate to take the complaint on the file and make such further enquiry into it as was necessary under the law. Against that order the petitioners have presented this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) According to the sworn statement of the Local Fund Assistant Engineer, on the date in question, the bus was carrying passengers at "separate fares" from Kurnool to Nandyal, and the owner of the bus had not obtained the licence from the District Board required by Section 166(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act. The facts seem to be that the passengers were picked up within the municipal limits of Kurnool and carried in the bus to Nandyal, going over, in the course of the journey, one of the roads belonging to the District Board of Kurnool, For the purposes of the argument before us and in the Court below, it was not suggested that any passengers were picked up by the petitioners at any place within the limits of the District Board.

(3.) The short point for consideration by us is whether this motor bus under the circumstances must obtain a licence from the District Board of Kurnool. Section 166(1). of the Madras Local Boards Act is as follows: 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 licence obtained from the President of the District Board.