In Re: N.S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—The petitioner in both these petitions is the same person and the offence is said to have been committed in respect

of the same motor vehicle. He happened to be a dealer in radio sets and owned a motor vehicle. It had a driver''s seat and another cushioned seat

by the side of the driver. The rear portion was enclosed by plates and inside these was a bench. The Motor Vehicles Inspector who was examined

as P.W. I described it as having the shape of a van though registered only as a motor car in, Ex. II. The prosecution case was that he was using

this vehicle for the transport of goods like radio sets and that it was therefore a transport vehicle and that the car was so used without a certificate

of fitness as required by Section 38(1) and without a special permit as required by Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was also

prosecuted for not having reported all the alterations in the structure of the car made after the issue of Ex. II, to the authorities as required by

Section 32(1) of the same Act. He was convicted for all the offences by the first Court. But on appeal he was acquitted for the offence u/s 32(1)

and the convictions and sentences in respect of the other offences were confirmed. He was fined Rs. 10 for the offence u/s 38(1) and Rs. 15 for

the offence u/s 42(1).

It has been found by both the Courts that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and if it was a transport vehicle, the conviction will have

to be upheld, for admittedly the petitioner did not get a certificate of fitness as required by Section 38(1), nor did he obtain a special permit as

required by Section 42(1). But it is urged for the petitioner that it was registered only as a motor car and the fact that he was acquitted of the

offence punishable u/s 32(1) went to show that there was no structural alteration in the car and consequently it must be presumed that it was only a

motor car and not a transport vehicle. The acquittal u/s 32(1) cannot be taken to indicate that there was no structural alteration in the car at any

time after it came out of the manufacturer''s shop. The acquittal only indicates that there was no structural alteration after the issue of the certificate

of registration, Ex. II.

A ""transport vehicle"" is defined in Section 2(33) as a public service vehicle, a goods vehicle, a locomotive or a tractor other than a locomotive

or tractor used solely for agricultural purposes.

In this case the prosecution case is that this vehicle is a transport vehicle because it was a goods vehicle. A "" goods vehicle "" is defined in

Section 2(8) as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted

when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers. The prosecution case here is that the vehicle in question was used for the

carriage of goods. The evidence of P.W. 1 was that this was used for the purpose of carrying radio sets from the petitioner''s firm and he stated

that his radio set which was given for repair was brought to his house in that van. He had also stated, when examined in C.C. No. 967 of 1942,

that the accused allowed his radios to be carried in that vehicle for delivery to the purchasers. It is true in another case he stated, where he was

cross-examined about his radio having been carried in this car, "" that was the only occasion when I saw the van conveying the radio set."" Whether

the words "" the radio set"" referred to his radio set or radio sets in general is not clear. But there is the evidence that his radio was carried in that

van. There is the further fact that the accused was a dealer in radios and there is also evidence that the car, though it was registered as a motor car,

has the appearance of a van. From all these facts the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was used for carrying goods. If it was used for

carrying goods it was a goods vehicle and consequently a transport vehicle.

In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was wrong in finding him guilty of the offence under Sections 38(1) and

42(1), as admittedly the petitioner had not obtained a certificate as required by Section 38(1) or a permit as required by Section 42(1). The

sentence is not excessive. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.