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
8 paragraphs · 178 wordsLakshmana Rao, J.—The petitioner is a motor bus driver and he is alleged to have violated the condition of the ''G'' permit issued under the
Motor Vehicles Rules of 1923 regarding the maximum number of passengers that can be carried in the bus. The violation of the condition was
made punishable by Rule 30(a)(1) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules of 1923 which have been superseded by the Motor Vehicles Rules of
1938 and the driver is not mentioned in Rules 175 and 176 of the new rules which deal with issue of tickets and overloading. There is no rule in the
Motor Vehicles Rules of 1938 corresponding to Rule 30(a)(1) of the Rules of 1923 making the driver liable for the offence of overloading and
Rule 262 is only a saving clause which validates the ''G'' permit issued under the old rules till its expiry. It cannot possibly be construed as a penal
provision and the charge against the petitioner is unsustainable.
The revision petition is therefore allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.