In re: Vajram

Paul, J.—The revision petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ami, of an offence punishable under

R. 47-A(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules read with S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Rule 162, read with S. 112 of the

Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- under each count, in default to undergo S.I. for one week under each count. The conviction to an

offence under Rule 162 read with S. 112 of the Act and the sentences meted out for that offence have been confirmed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate of North Arcot at Vellore.

The charge against the accused was that on 5th February 1975 at about 4.30 P.M. on the Arni-Vellore Road when the Sub-Inspector of Police

stopped and checked the bus M. D. J. 4024 which the accused was driving, it was noticed that the permit and the registration certificate were not

available in the vehicle and further the accused was not in proper uniform. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 the Sub Inspector of Police, in

support of the aforesaid accusation. The accused denied the offence, but did not adduce any evidence on his side.

The question is whether the convictions of the revision petitioner are correct, in as much as there is no evidence that P.W. 1, the Sub Inspector,

was in uniform when he checked the bus. S. 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down that

(1) The driver and the conductor, if any, of a motor vehicle in an? public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce hit

licence for examination; (2) The owner of a motor vehicle or in his absence, the driver or the other person in charge of the vehicle, shall, on

demand by a registering authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government produce the Certificate of registration of the

vehicle and where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness referred to in S. 38(3) If the licence or certificate as the case may be,

are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made it shall be a sufficient compliance with this Section, if such person

produces the licence or certificates within ten days at any police station in India which he specifies to the police officer or authority making the

demand.

The proviso to that Section says:

Provided that, except to such extent and with such modifications as may be prescribed, the provision of the sub section shall not apply to a driver

driving as a paid employee, or to the driver of a transport vehicle or to any person required to produce the certificate of registration or the

certificate of fitness of a transport vehicle.

Rule 162 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules prescribes that the holder of a permit shall cause Part B thereof or the temporary permit, as the

case may be to be carried on the vehicle and it shall be produced by the driver for inspection on demand made at any reasonable time by any

authorised person and Rule 47-A states that the driver of a transport vehicle while on duty (i) shall, as far as may be reasonably possible having

regard to his duties, be responsible for the due observance of the provisions of the Act and of those rules; and...(iv) shall be cleanly dressed and in

the manner in which the Transport Authority may specify. The evidence of P.W. 1, the Sub Inspector, is merely to the effect that he stopped the

bus driven by the accused and checked it and the accused, when asked for the permit and the registration certificate, stated that the above records

were not available and further the driver was not in uniform. It has not been stated by the Sub Inspector what was the dress prescribed by the

Transport Authority under rule 47-A. It is not P.W. 1''s case that the accused-driver was not cleanly dressed. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate has set aside hit conviction for an offence under Rule 47-A, read with S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and acquitted the accused of

that offence.

Now, in regard to the allegation that the permit and registration certificate were not available in the bus, there is the evidence of P.W. 1 to that

effect and P.W. 1, states that the accused when asked to produce them said they were not available. But then, under Sub-section (2) of S. 86 of

the Act it is only on demand by a person duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government that the driver or other person in charge of the

vehicle is required to produce the certificate of registration and the certificate of fitness. Rule 162 also mentions that the demand shall be by any

authorised person. In the absence of any evidence to show that P.W. 1 was in uniform and in the absence of any evidence to show that he was an

authorised person, it cannot be said that the ingredients of an offence under S. 86(2) read with S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been made

out. When an offence is alleged against any person, it is for the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence. In the instant case, one of the

ingredients is that the demand should be by an authorised person and in the absence of any evidence to show that P.W. 1, was an authorised

person it cannot be said that this important ingredient of an offence under S. 86(2) of the Act, read with rule 162 of the Rules and with S. 112 of

the Act has been made out. Hence, I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction of the revision petitioner of an offence under S. 86(2)

of the Act, read with rule 162 of the Rules and with S. 112 of the Act and acquit him of that offence and the fine amount, if paid by him, may be

refunded.