Emperor vs Cooverji Nasarwanji

Batty, J.—In this case the accused has been convicted of an infringement of a prohibition u/s 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (II of 1904). and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 Co, u/s 13.

The prohibition which is said to have been infringed, does not appear to be on the record. The Government Pleader is unable to point to any permit or license the conditions of which have been infringed. The prohibition in the Notification No. 1320 dated 15-3-1906 (1), which is referred to in the Magistrate''s judgment, does not purport to be u/s 9 but u/s 10.

On appeal, the First Class Magistrate has converted the conviction into one of abetment of an infringement and it was held that the abetment by the accused consisted in his not informing the driver of the existence of the prohibition. Unless the conditions of the permit required the master so to inform his servant, we are unable to see that any offence has been committed. It certainly would not be an abetment of the offence for the master, to omit to give information to his servant, unless the omission were illegal, that is to say, in disobedience of an obligation imposed upon him by law. No law has been cited to us which imposed on the accused the duty of instructing his servant in the rules.

We must set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded.