DAULAT MAL SINGHVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Kotah, dated the 24th January, 1962.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that on the 28th April, 1960 Shri Daulatmal Singhvi, who was Executive Engineer, Chambal Project at Kotah, was driving a Pick up No. RJR 755 belonging to the Raiasthan Government and when he was passing through a locality called Gumenpura, Shri Radheyshyam, P. S. I. checked the said vehicle and demanded driving licence from Shri Singhvi. He was not in possession of the driving licence at that time and so he was prosecuted in the Court of First Class Magistrate, No. 3, Kotah, under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He admitted before the Magistrate that the driving licence was not present with him at the time when he was driving the vehicle, but he produced it at the Police Station, Naya Pura within 10 days and, therefore, he had not committed any offence. The Magistrate observed that according to a circular issued by the Government no officer was permitted to drive vehicles belonging to the Government and that only drivers employed for that - purpose could do so. It was further observed by him that the accused had committed breach of Rule 53 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and so he convicted him under Section 112 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5/ -, or to undergo 2 days' simple imprisonment in default of its payment. Aggrieved by this judgment dated the 4th July, 1960, the accused filed a revision application in the court of Sessions Judge, Kotah. The learned Judge has observed that the accused did not come within the definition of a driver, that he was a person in -charge of the vehicle as envisaged in Section 86(2) of the Act and that since he had complied with the provisions of the said section and produced his licence at the police station within 20 days of demand, his conviction was not maintainable and should be set aside.

(3.) SHRI Ranamal appearing for the petitioner supports the reference and the learned Government Advocate also does not oppose it. I have gone into the report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge and, in my opinion, it was unnecessary for him to enter into the question whether the accused was only a person in -charge of the vehicle or a driver, because it was not denied by the accused that he was himself driving the vehicle at the time when the driving licence was demanded from him. Sub -section (3) of Section 86 of the Act applies as much to the owner of a motor vehicle as to a driver or a person in -charge of the vehicle, it the demand for licence is made from him. Sub -section (3) clearly lays down that if the driving licence or registration certificates are not at the time in possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be a sufficient compliance with this section if such person produces the licence or certificates within ten days at any police station in India which he specifies to the police officer or authority making the demand. This sub -section does not apply to a driver driving as a paid employee or to the driver of a transport vehicle as laid down, in the proviso thereto. It was not the prosecution case if the accused was a paid driver or that he was a driver of the transport vehicle. His case was, therefore, completely covered by sub -section (3) and did not fall within the ambit of the proviso thereto. The learned Magistrate no doubt relied upon Rule 55 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, but it should have been read by him subject to the provisions of Section 86 (3) of the Act, because the Rule could not over -ride the provisions of the Act. The Magistrate observed in his judgment that the licence was produced by the accused on the 11th day, but it appears that he failed to notice the application which was presented by the accused and which showed that he had submitted the licence at the police station on the 6th May, 1960. He could not be blamed if the Station House Officer was not present at the police station on that day. The accused having submitted his driving licence for inspection within 10 days of the date on which it was demanded from him, his case was completely covered by Section 86(3) of the Act and he deserved to be acquitted.