EMPEROR Vs. BHANGDA FAKIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Honorary Bench Magistrates, Ankleshvar, in respect of an alleged offence under Section 61, Clause (a) of the Bombay District Police Act (IV of 1890). That clause refers to driving a vehicle of any description at any time between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise without a sufficient light or lights, either without lawful cause, or except when there is sufficient moon light to render such light unnecessary. In the present case the prosecution case was that the accused was driving his cart without a light at 8 p.m. on a road in the local area, to which that clause applies. The accused admitted this and said: I had gone to Broach with the Patel to bring a buffalo. It was late there. It was not possible form to go to the village without crossing the road. So I went to the Bhagol (outskirts) of Piraman and got my name noted down there. I was warned to light a lamp, but I had no lamp with me, so how can I light one? We had gone to Broach in the morning and it was late there, so that the lamps had already been lighted (thereto).

(2.) The judgment of the Chairman of the Bench quotes the explanation about the accused having gone to Broach and having to cross the road. Then they say: Again the accused was asked by the Court Why was it that he did not observe the order of the Carriage Constable to ignite light. He says he had no lights nor had he any material to make a light and consequently ho was unable to keep a light. We, therfore, hold this excuse as a lawful excuse under Section 61, Clause (a); of the District Police Act.

(3.) It has been urged before us that the case falls within the words "lawful excuse," because the accused, who went to Broach, intended to get back before dark, but had to stay at Broach longer than he expected, so that he had a good excuse for not having a light on his cart.