A. TARINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur, convicting the Petitioner under Section 6(1) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10/ -. The Petitioner was the driver of a motor vehicle ORG 272 which was a bus plying between Berhampur and Odgan. On 23 -5 -1962 it was noticed that the tax token for the second quarter of 1962 was not affixed on the vehicle. Hence both the owner and the driver of the vehicle were prosecuted for an offence under the said Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the owner and convicted the driver only.

(2.) MR . Murty for the Petitioner urged that a mere driver of a vehicle would not be guilty of an offence under Section 6(1) of that Act. That Section 6(1) says that the registered owner or the person having possession or control thereof shall be punishable. The question arises whether a mere driver of a vehicle can be held to be a person having possession or control over the vehicle. It is true that as a driver of the vehicle he has temporary control over the movement of the vehicle. But in Section 6(1) it appears that a mere driver was not contemplated by the legislature as the person punishable for not carrying the tax token. On the other hand in Sub -section (2) of that section, the word 'driver ' is expressly mentioned and certain duties cast on him. It is made further clear in Sub -section 6 -A, inserted in the present Act by the Amending Act of 1962 that the registered owner, the person having possession or control of the vehicle and driver thereof shall be bound to comply with all orders and directions that may he given by the officer -in -charge. Here the word 'driver ' has been used in extra position with the other expression "the registered owner, the person having possession or control of the vehicle". It is obvious that the legislature meant that the three expressions should not have the same meaning. The words and phrases should be given the same meaning throughout the Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context. Hence the provisions of Section 6 -A can be used to construe the same expression in Section 6(1) of that Act. When so construed it must be held that the legislature did not intend to include a mere driver of the vehicle in the expression "person having possession or control of the vehicle". It obviously refers to persons other than the owner, such as, pledge, unregistered transferee and other persons who have right over the vehicle as distinct from a mere driver.