High CourtsDivision Bench

In Re: Jambulingam Pillai

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 August 1942 · Citation: AIR 1943 Mad 61 : (1942) 55 LW 722 : (1942) 2 MLJ 629

HON’BLE JUDGES
Horwill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 112, 78
Ask AI about this case

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

16 paragraphs · 379 words

Horwill, J.—The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathur of an offence punishable u/s 78 read with Section

112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 8. The conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate of Devakottai.

2.

The gravamen of the offence with which the petitioner was charged was that he exceeded the speed limit laid down under the Motor Vehicles

Act. That speed limit is ordinarily 30 miles an hour under the VIII Schedule; but the Provincial Government or some authority specially authorised

can prescribe lower limits for certain areas u/s 71 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the lower speeds are fixed by notification in the Gazette. In

order to bring home this offence to the accused the prosecution have to prove two things : (1) that a certain speed has been laid down under the

Motor Vehicles Act as the maximum speed that a vehicle should attain, and (2) that the driver in question has exceeded that speed limit.

3.

The proving of the first of these points is, of course, just as important as the proving of the second. The only evidence let in by the prosecution

on that point is that of a Traffic Sub-Inspector of Police who says that within the Karaikudi Municipality there are two posts in cement on which

are painted the numbers ""10"" to indicate that the speed should not exceed 10 miles an hour. He had however further to prove that that speed had

been fixed by some authority empowered to fix a speed u/s 71 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. No attempt was made to prove that. The learned

Magistrate thought that the fact that the vehicles were warned by these sign posts not to exceed 10 miles an hour proved that the Municipal

Commissioner had fixed that speed and that the Commissioner would not have fixed that speed unless he had had proper authority for doing so.

These are very big presumptions to make; and I think that the accused is entitled to say that the prosecution did not prove its case. ''

4.

The petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence set Aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.