AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 417 wordsS.B. Sen, J.
This is a reference arising out of a conviction of applicant Babusingh u/s 42 read with section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
One Babusingh has a motor car bearing number M.P.E. 5617. It is a private car and not a taxi. On this car however he had displayed some advertising devices. He has no permit to do so. Before the Magistrate who examined him he had admitted his guilt. He was therefore convicted.
A revision petition was however filed before the Sessions Judge. He has not agreed with the Magistrate on this conviction which according to him on the facts alleged by the prosecution cannot be maintained. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge. No permit for display of advertisement is required for a private car unless it is used as "transport vehicle". A transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(33) as a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle. Prosecution has not shown that it is a public service vehicle. The goods vehicle as defined in section 2(8) means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers. A definition of the word "permit" has also been given in section 2(20) which authorises the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage or stage carriage or authorizing the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. Therefore the permit can be issued only in case of a transport vehicle. As this private car cannot come under the definition of a transport vehicle, there cannot be any question of permit.
The learned Government Advocate brought to my notice a case reported in In re Manager Indian Express AIR 1945 Mad. 440 in which a single Judge of that High Court has given a very wide definition of the words "goods vehicle." That was a case in which the accused was carrying newspaper bundles in his private car and he did it also on previous occasion. It was held by his Lordship that the vehicle came under the definition of goods vehicle. Even if this extended meaning is taken which, with due respect I cannot accept, the facts are different. In this case no goods as such have been carried. Therefore this case will have no application.
I therefore accept the reference and set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant.