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
11 paragraphs · 236 wordsHorwill, J.—The petitioner has been convicted for exceeding by a few miles per hour the speed limit fixed by the Road Transport Board just
outside Madura on the Madura-Dindigul Road.
The first point raised in this petition is that the Road Transport Board has not '' fixed '' the speed of 15 miles an hour--which the petitioner is said
to have exceeded--within the meaning of Section 71 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been held in several decisions of this Court that the
fixing of the speed by the Board is the publication in the Official Gazette. The expression '' Official Gazette '' is defined in the General Clauses Act,
Section 37-A, as meaning the Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Official Gazette of the province--which, in this Presidency, would mean
the Fort St. George Gazette. It is admitted by the prosecution that there has been no publication in the Fort St. George Gazette but only in the
District Gazette. As there has been no publication in the Official Gazette, the speed limit for this area was not fixed by the Road Transport Board.
It follows that the petitioner was not guilty of exceeding the speed '' fixed '''' by the Road Transport Board and ought not therefore to have been
convicted.
The petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. The fine will be refunded.