M.C.DESAI, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, for the quashing of conviction of the applicant Sultan Khan for the offence of Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, for contravention of Rule 81 -A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The applicant is the driver of a public service vehicle. It has been found that when the vehicle was checked by an inspector no complaint book was found in it. It is laid down in Rule 81 -A sub -rule (1) that "a complaint book ...... shall be maintained . . . . in every stage carriage to enable passengers to record any legitimate complaints in connection with the stage carriage service" and in sub -rule (4) that "the complaint book shall be so securely kept in the stage carriage ...... as to provide ample safeguards against the risk of being removed and shall at all times be made available to any passenger desiring to record a complaint or to an officer of the Transport Department". The rule has not been made intelligently, and the Government have not at all indicated whose duty it is to maintain the complaint book and to make it available to a passenger or to an officer of the Transport Department. It was wholly useless to say merely that a complaint book must be maintained and must be made available, because no useful purpose is served by imposing an obligation upon a complaint book. An obligation should have been imposed upon a human being; some human being should have been, required to maintain a complaint book and to make it available to any passenger etc. A complaint book will not be maintained or will not be made available simply by making Rule 81 -A without making somebody responsible for maintaining it and making it available. It seems that the Government had not made up their mind about the person on whom the duty of maintaining and making available a complaint book should be cast and so adopted the device of making the rule in passive form casting the duties on the complaint book.
(2.) THE rules do not provide for any punishment for their contravention. Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays clown that whoever Contravenes any rule made under the Act will be punished with a fine which may extend to Rs. 100/ -. Since no duty has been imposed upon any one by Rule 81 -A no one can be said to contravene it and nobody is liable to be punished under Section 112 if no complaint book is maintained in a stage carriage. There is no reason why the driver of a stage carriage should be selected for being punished for the non -maintenance of a complaint book and not the conductor or the owner, or the manager of the service or any one else.
(3.) RULE 78(1) of the Rules provides that "the driver and the conductor of a public service vehicle shall, as far 'as may be reasonably possible having regard to his duties, be responsible for the due observance of the provisions of ... these Rules". This rule is another example of the slipshod manner in which rules are made by the Government. It was the duty of the Government to use in the Rules words with clear and well -defined or well understood meaning so that those who are required to do an act or to abstain from doing an act left in no doubt about their obligation and about the penalty for failure to discharge it. Not only is the rule grammatically incorrect but also it does not make or convey any sense. It is not understood why the singular word "his" is used with reference to "the driver and the conductor" of a public service vehicle. Was it the intention of the Government that only one or the other should be made responsible? If so, the word "and" in the opening words of the rule was inappropriate. It makes no sense to say that the driver "shall be responsible" for the due observance of the rules because no manner in which the responsibility can be enforced is laid down in the rules. If the driver was intended to be made punishable for non -observance of Rule 81 -A, it should have been said so specifically and clearly. It is nowhere laid down in the Rules what would happen to the driver if the rules were not duly observed; merely saving that he is responsible for their due observance does not mean anything. Rule 79(1) cannot be interpreted to mean that it is the driver's duty to maintain a complaint book and to make it available. Being made responsible for due observance does not mean that it is his duty to comply with the rules; his responsibility is discharged if some one else complies with them. Hence whose duty it is to comply with the rules is a question different from who is responsible for the observance. Further both the driver and the conductor are made responsible for the observance of the rules. Since the duty of complying with the rules could not have been cast on two persons, it follows that this rule does not require them to comply with the rules. It appears that the object behind it was to impose a duty upon them to see that the rules are duly observed by those whose duty it is to observe them, but even this object is not achieved by the words used in it. Then the responsibility of the driver is said to be so far as it may reasonably be possible having regard to his duties; his duties have nothing to do with the maintenance of a complaint book and making it available. There is no reason why it should be held to be his responsibility and not that of the conductor or of the owner or of the manager. There is nothing to indicate that it is the responsibility of all of them and if it is not the responsibility of all of them it cannot be said that it is the responsibility of any particular one of them. It was the duty of the Government to make it the duty of any particular one of them and then only he would be liable for its non -observance. It is impossible to read Section 112 with Rule 79(1). Section 112 punishes contravention of a rule and does not see to the enforcement of a rule. Rule 79(1) simply makes a driver responsible for a certain act; that rule can be contravened only by his not being responsible, may be by his denying his responsibility, but certainly not by his not doing the act. If he does not do an act for which he is responsible, it cannot be said that he contravenes the rule making him responsible for it. If a rule requires him to do an act he can contravene it by not doing it, but if he is not required to do any act there is no question of his contravening it. Suppose the applicant says or admits that he is responsible for the due observance of the rule; he cannot then be said to contravene the rule. Failure to discharge a responsibility does not amount to contravention of the rule imposing it. If the Government intended the driver to be punished for the non -observance of the rules, instead of laying down that he was responsible for their due observance they should have laid down that he should see that the rules were duly observed. If the rule had been that the driver must see that the rules were observed, the applicant could be said to have been guilty under Section 112 by not seeing that Rule 81 -A was observed. ;