J. Ramackers and Another vs Emperor

Rowland, J.—This application arises out of a prosecution u/s 16 and Rule 20, Clause (5), Motor Vehicles Act, and Rules there under. Clause (5), Rule 20 imposes a penalty both on the owner and on the driver in case a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle is driven in a public place without being fitted with a mirror which will reflect traffic approaching from the rear. Mr. J. Ramackers is the owner and Mobarak Hossain was the driver of a goods truck "B.O.R. 131." A police report was submitted on 16th March 1936 for their prosecution on the allegation that no mirror was fitted in the truck. The case broke down. It was found that the truck was fitted with a central mirror inside the windscreen. The police prosecutor did not however abandon the case but contended that the rule had not been complied with because an outside mirror on the right ought to have been fitted. There is no requirement in the Act or Rules that the mirror should be fitted in any particular position. What the rule requires is that it should be capable of reflecting traffic approaching from the rear. The mirror fitted to this truck is capable of reflecting traffic coming from behind as found by the trying Magistrate provided that the truck is not fully loaded; but it may become ineffective if the lorry is fully loaded. If the evidence in this case had been that the truck was so heavily loaded on the day in question that the mirror would not reflect approaching traffic then that would have been enough to constitute an offence under the Act and the Rule. But the point for decision was whether the mirror was so placed as to reflect traffic approaching from behind at the time when the driver was driving the truck. There is no finding that on that day the mirror did not give an adequate reflection of any traffic that might come from the rear. That being so, the conviction cannot stand and must be set aside. The accused are acquitted and the fines, if paid, are to be refunded.