Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a criminal prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against drivers who were not the owners of the vehicles. The drivers were found driving public carriers in contravention of the conditions of the permits granted to the owners. In Criminal Appeal No. 115/56, the respondent Bansraj was found carrying 23 passengers instead of the permitted 6, and in the connected appeal a similar violation occurred. They were prosecuted under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced them to fine. On a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, the Allahabad High Court interpreted Section 42(1) as imposing an interdiction solely on the owner from using or permitting the use of the vehicle contrary to the permit, and held that the driver could not be guilty under Section 123. Consequently, the High Court acquitted the drivers. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed by special leave. The sole legal issue was whether a driver, not being the owner, can be prosecuted under Section 123 for driving in contravention of permit conditions. The appellant State argued that the High Court's interpretation was erroneous and that Section 42(1) applies to the user of the vehicle, not just the owner, and Section 123 penalises any person who drives in contravention. The respondents did not appear. The Supreme Court examined the language of the provisions. Section 42(1) states that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of the permit. The Court held that the section not only prohibits the owner but also contemplates that the vehicle itself shall be used only in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 123 provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of Section 42(1) shall be punishable. The Court found that the phrase "whoever drives a motor vehicle" covers any person, including a driver who is not the owner. Therefore, the High Court's interpretation was incorrect. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the convictions, and held that drivers are also liable under Section 123 for driving in contravention of the terms of the permits.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Offences and Penalties - Driver Liability for Permit Contravention - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 42(1) and 123 - The respondent drivers, not being owners, were found driving motor vehicles in contravention of the terms of the permits. The High Court held that only the owner could be guilty under Section 123. The Supreme Court interpreted Section 42(1) as not restricted to the owner but also requiring that the vehicle itself be used only as authorised by the permit. Section 123 penalises all persons who drive a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 42(1). Held, that drivers of motor vehicles are also liable under Section 123 for driving in contravention of permit conditions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a driver, not being the owner, can be prosecuted under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for driving a motor vehicle in contravention of the conditions of a permit granted under Section 42(1)
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the drivers of motor vehicles are also liable under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for driving in contravention of the terms of the permits. The High Court's order was set aside and the convictions were restored. The appeals were allowed.
Law Points
- S. 42(1) Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939 prohibits not only owner but also any user of vehicle in contravention of permit
- S. 123 penalises any person who drives a motor vehicle in contravention of S. 42(1)
- driver is liable for driving in contravention of permit conditions even if not owner
