Aklu and Another vs King-Emperor

Bucknill, J.—This was an application made to this Court in criminal revisional jurisdiction by two persona named Aklu and Shyamnarain Rai. The first of the applicants is a chauffeur in the employment of a wealthy gentleman named Mr. P.C. Lal, the proprietor of a large property known as the Dharamganj Estate. This chauffeur was convicted by a Deputy Magistrate of Purnea on the 12th of January last of an offence against the provisions of Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act (VIII of 1914) which is punishable under the provisions of Section 16 of the same Act. The offence contemplated by Section 8 is the non-production by the driver of a motor vehicle of his license upon demand by any police officer. This applicant was fined Rs. 5.

The second applicant is an Assistant Manager of the Dharamganj Estate; he is also in the employment of Mr. Lal and is in a responsible position. He was convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Purnea on the 12th of January last of two offence against rules made under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914. The first of these convictions was in respect of an offence committed against the provisions of Rule 12. This rule relates to the necessity for having marked and numbered plates on a motor vehicle. The second conviction was relative to Rule 13 of the rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914. This Rule 13 relates to the necessity for the appearance of certain lamps on motor vehicles driven on public roads at certain times of the night. Apparently, as a sort of compound penalty for the breaches of Rules 12 and 13, the Deputy Magistrate sentenced Mr. Shyamnarain Rai to pay a fine of Rs. 25; the penalties for contravention of rules made under the Act are regulated mainly by Section 16 of the Act itself. Prom these convictions and sentences the two applicants applied to the Sessions Judge of Purnea, asking that he should refer the matter to this Court; the Sessions Judge, however, on the 8th of March last, refused to do so and hence the matter has come up here in revision.

The whole matter is really a very petty one; but it seems to have accused a considerable amount of feeling in the neighbourhood. I do not propose, however, to refer to any question of that kind, but merely to examine the matter from a legal point of view. In the first place, with regard to the first applicant, the chauffeur, there is no doubt that he had been driving a car; he had driven the car to the house of a Deputy Magistrate, Babu Rameshwar Singh, at Kishanganj and when at that gentleman''s house was asked by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Mr. Sanyal) to produce his license; he had not got it with him, but had it at his house. Section 6 of the Act prescribes so far as is here material, as follows:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place unless he is licensed in the prescribed manner, and no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall allow any person who is not licensed to drive it.

Section 8 reads:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall produce his license upon demand by any police officer.

The learned Counsel, who has appeared for the applicants here, suggests that a police officer cannot ask a driver of a motor vehicle for his license in the private grounds of a private person; but can only do so when a car is actually being driven by the person, whose license is demanded, whilst on the public road. I do not think that there can properly be read into the Act any such exact restrictions of the time or place at which a police officer can demand a driver''s license. The administration of this law should, however, be carried on with sympathy and firmness. In this case, it Seems that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, one evening, saw the car in question being driven into the premises of the Deputy Magistrate; it seems to have had no name plate and the lights are said to have been defective; the Deputy Superintendent therefore followed the car and eventually reached the Deputy Magistrate''s compound and there it was that he asked the chauffeur for his license. Now, as a matter of fact, it is common ground that the chauffeur was a properly licensed driver and had at his house near by his license, I must admit that it does seem to me (although it may be said that the chauffeur was guilty of a technical offence) that it is rather a harsh way of administering the law to institute a prosecution against a chauffeur simply because he may have not got his license on his parson. In any case, although I think that he has committed a technical offence I do not think that he should, under the circumstances, have been prosecuted; and I therefore order that his fine shall be reduced from Rs. 5 to one anna as I do not think that prosecution under the circumstances should have taken place.

I next come to the question of the absence of the name-plate. There seems no doubt whatever that there was no proper name-plate on the car that evening. The explanation is that the car had just come that day from a workshop where it had been repaired and that the plate was at the Dharamganj katcheri; it would no doubt have been fixed the next day; there was plate which had always been used and properly used on the car. Now Rule 12 of the rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914 throws upon the owner of the car the burden of seeing that the plates containing the distinctive letters and number of the car are fixed in the proper place upon motor vehicles. The material part reads thus:

Every owner shall within three days of the registration cause the mark assigned to the motor vehicle under Rule 9 to be shown in white on two black rectangular plates etc. etc.

Now the facts with regard to this particular car are somewhat confused; one thing, however, is quite certain and that is that Mr. Shayamnarain Rai was not; the owner. It would seem from the evidence of a Mr. J.J. Mackay that he was at one time the Sub-Manager at Dharamganj katcheri at Kishanganj; that during the period when he occupied that position Mr. Lal purchased a car for the use of the officer who was Sub-Manager of the Dharamganj katcheri at Kishenganj. It was a Ford car and, although it was purchased by Mr. Lal and was an estate car, it appears that Mr. Mackay (probably through ignorance of the law) registered the car in his (Mr. Mackay''s) own name. So far as I am aware, this registration has never been altred; but, some time after Mr. Mackay vacated his position, he seems, under the provisions of Rule 10 of the rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914, to have given written information to the police that he no longer "was in charge of the car." No doubt the "charge of the car" (whatever that may exactly mean) conveys in popular language the general idea that Mr. Mackay was in control of the car itself whilst he was Sub-Manager of the estate at Kishanganj. No doubt, too, Mr. Shayamnarain Rai succeeded Mr. Mackay in office and also in being "in charge of the ear" but although Mr. Mackay seems to have wrongly been registered as owner of the car, there is nothing to indicate that Mr. Shyamnarain Rai was ever registered even wrongly as the owner; and it is quite clear that ho is not the owner within the meaning of Rule 12 of the rules. Under these circumstances it seems impossible to uphold this conviction under this rule. The person responsible for having a board fixed upon the vehicle appears to be the owner and not the person who, from time to time may have the use of the car. Lastly, I come to the question of the conviction under Rule 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914. Rule 13 reads:

No motor vehicle shall be driven on a public road during the period between half an hour after sunset and half, an hour before sunrise unless every lamp prescribed by Rule 8(i) i lit and unless its light is visible within a reasonable distance.

Now it may well be asked as to who is responsible with regard to the lights being in proper order and duly lit. This opens up a considerable field for speculation; one may think that the real person who is in charge of the car and who is looking after and should look after the lamps must primarily be the driver; but then one may well say that there might occur cases in which the person not actually in charge of the car might be responsible; as, possibly, for example, in the case of a parson who was the owner of the car and who refused to provide his driver with the necessary batteries for the purposes of illumination or with the necessary lamps or bulbs. However, this question does not really arise, I think, here; because am not satisfied that it was clearly shown that the car was being driven on a public road at a prohibited time. (While examining the evidence regarding the time when the car was found driven with defective lights his Lordship proceeded,) We do not find any distinct statement as to the exact time at which the Deputy Superintendent of Police saw the car being used wrongfully without proper lights; and I may say that it is of the utmost importance that when a prosecution of this character is being undertaken, there should be independent and direct evidence (preferably of two persons with separate and accurate timepieces indicating exactly the time at which the car has been observed being driven on the public road with defective lights. It is little practical use for a police officer to come into Court and say that "some time after dusk" or "about 7 p.m." or words to that effect, if it is hoped that such a prosecution is to be successfully conducted. In questions of contravening regulations as to the time of lighting lamps on, what I suppose one must consider, a dangerous vehicle, time is practically the most material point and the point of time must be proved meticulously and accurately. I do not think that this is the case here. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, in the course of a very long cross-examination, indeed, says that ha cannot; swear that the car was not at the Deputy Magistrate''s place from 6 to 6-15 p.m. on that day. One may understand that this officer means that he cannot say whether between those two times the car was not at the Deputy Magistrate''s compound. I do not gather that he thinks that his statement with regard to the hour or approximate hour at which he had seen the car being driven on the road was wrong: but I may point out that according to the evidence of the Deputy Magistrate and the Sub-Deputy Magistrate there was only one occasion upon which the ear came into the Deputy Magistrate''s compound that evening; and that was at the time when they ware all together and when the Deputy Superintendent of Police followed the car in some 15 or 20 minutes after it arrived. I do not think, therefore, that the case of conviction with regard to the improper lighting of the car in contravention of Rule 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914 can be upheld and must be sat aside.

The result is that the conviction of the first applicant will be upheld but, under the circumstances, his sentence of Rs. 5 fine will be reduced to a fine of one anna. The surplus fine of the chauffeur, if paid, must be refunded. With regard to the convictions of the second applicant, Mr. Shyamnarain Rai, for contravention of Rule 12, it must be set aside on the ground that he was not the owner of the car. His conviction for contravantion of Rule 13 under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914 must also be sat aside on the ground that the time at which the alleged offence was committed has not been satisfactorily proved, the joint sentence of fine passed against him for the double offence which ho is alleged to have committed in contravention of the two Rules Nos. 12 and 13 under the Act must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded.