STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. FANNALAL CHUNNILAL
LAWS(MPH)-1967-3-5
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 02,1967

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
FANNALAL CHUNNILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Cri. Rev. No. 672 of 1966 (The State of M. P. v. Pukhraj and Indarchand.)
(2.) THESE are two references made by the Sessions Judge, Seoni, for quashing the conviction of the respective respondents under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the penalty of a fine of Rs. 50 or in default simple imprisonment for two days and four days respectively, passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Seoni, in a summary trial on the admission of the respective respondents. The only question involved in the present case is whether the action of the respective respondents in carrying gold and silver ornaments for sale in their respective cars, registered as motor cars under section 2, sub-section (16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, amounts to an offence under section 38 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the question whether it would amount to an offence under any other section of the Act. However, the learned Magistrate thought that the offence committed was under section 112 of the Act for contravention of section 08 of the Act. It may be relevant to refer to the admission made by the respective respondents. Pannalal in his examination stated that he often carries gold and silver ornaments and utensils for sale in his oar to Barghat Bazar and other bazars. He also admItted that he had no separate registration for the carriage of these articles. SimItar was the admission of the other two respondents in the connected case. Can the said admissions be said to constItute an offence under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for an alleged contravention of section 38 of the Act ? The learned Sessions Judge opined that no offence at all is made out as the car in question could not be said to have become a transport vehicle merely because the respective respondents were carrying their own goods, which were meant for sale.
(3.) BEFORE referring to the decided cases it may be pertinent to advert to the relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 2, subsection (7) defines "goods" as follows: - " 'goods' includes live stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persona, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor oar or in a trailer attached to a motor oar or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle." Sub-section (8) of the said section defines 'goods vehicle' to mean "any motor vehicle constructed or adopted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adopted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers." Thus, any motor vehicle if constructed or adopted for use for the carriage of goods can in the first instance be called a goods vehicle. In the second instance if it is not so constructed or adopted then it must be used for the carriage of goods solely or for the carriage of goods of passengers together. Can it be said that if a person carries his commercial goods in a car on some solitary occasions he has contravened any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.