Sk. Diljan and Others vs State of Orissa

N.K. Das, J.—Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the public bus No. ORB 870. On 17-12-1971 at about 9 a. m. P.W. 8 the officer in-charge of Basta P.S. checked the bus and found that it was plying without fitness certificate; it had no road permit, it had no insurance certificate as well as registration certificate. The speedo meter was not working. Petitioner No. 1 has been convicted u/s 12(1)(a) of the M.V.T. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 600/ - in default to undergo S.I. for three months. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are driver and conductor of the bus respectively. All the Petitioners have been convicted u/s 112 of the M.V. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/ - each in default to undergo S.I. for 30 days each. They have also been convicted u/s 123 of the M.V. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs: 50/ - in default to undergo S.I. for one month each. They have further been convicted u/s 125 of the M.V. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - each in default undergo S.I. for 25 days each.

Mr. Sahu for the Petitioner does not challenge the findings of fact. He, however, contends that according to Section 12(1)(a) of the M.V.T. Act the fine should not exceed one and a half times in the case of the first conviction. It is not disputed in this case that Petitioner No. 1 is convicted for the first time. Section 12(1)(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (Bihar and Orissa Act II of 1930) provides that whoever keeps a motor vehicle for use without having paid the tax or additional tax in respect of such vehicles shall be punishable with fine not exceeding, in the case of the first conviction, one and a half times, of the annual tax payable for the motor vehicle in respect (if which the offence is committed. Both the Courts have held that the tax of the while for a quarter is Rs. 3001-. Therefore, the annual tax comes to Rs. 1, 200/ -. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to impose fine up to Rs. 1, 800/ -; instead he has imposed a fine of Rs. 600/ - only. The learned appellate Court has committed a mistake in interpreting Section 12(1)(a) of the M.V.T. Act. I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate as regards the fine imposed.

All the Petitioners have also been convicted under Sections 112, 123 and 125 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner, Petitioner No. 2 is the driver and Petitioner No. 3 is the conductor. Section 112 relates to general provisions for punishment of offences. Section 123 relates to using a vehicle without registration or permit and Section 125 relates to driving a motor vehicle without insurance certificate. The owner and the driver are undoubtedly liable for the offences under the aforesaid sections. The conductor is nowhere liable under the aforesaid provisions as in this case it has not been established that the conductor had knowledge of absence of permit or absence of registration certificate or insurance certificate and non-payment of tax. Accordingly I hold that the conviction of Petitioner No. 3 under the aforesaid sections is not sustainable. As regards the conviction and sentence of Petitioners 1 and 2 under the aforesaid sections which have in fact been established and have not been challenged are maintained. The fines imposed under the aforesaid sections are also not high, or excessive.

4 In the result, the revision is allowed in part. Petitioner No. 3 Manhor Mohammad is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The conviction and sentence of Petitioners 1 and 2 on different counts are maintained.