In Re: Manager, Krishna Vinodha Sabha, C. Cunniah and Co.

Devadoss, J.—The only point urged in this case is that the manager of the theatre who did not drive the bus through the prohibited streets

should not have been convicted but that the man who actually drove the bus should have been convicted, as Section 76 (Act III of 1888)

contemplates only the conviction of the person who actually contravenes the conditions in the license. I am unable to accept this contention. In this

case the license was given for going in a bus with music for the purpose of distributing handbills and that license was given only for one day

between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M. The license was given to the petitioner. The mere fact that he asked his servant to drive the bus would not in any way

exonerate him from the conditions of the license. It is not necessary that he should actually go in the bus himself in order to make him liable u/s 76.

When the license obtained is for a particular purpose and the currency of the license is only for a short time, if the person who obtains license does

not himself drive the bus but makes his servant go through prohibited streets, he is as much liable as the man who drives the bus, because the

servant is only the hand by which the act is done. In this view of Section 76 I think the conviction of the petitioner is right. I dismiss the petition.