Seth, J. - (1.) The applicant Bucha Lai is the owner of Motor truck No. U. P. C. 1612. He was tried along with the driver of the truck named Tota Ram for an offence under Section 72/124, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the charge against him and Tota Ram being that they had carried or allowed to be carried on the aforesaid motor truck a load in excess of what was specified in the certificate of registration on various dates namely, 3rd March, 6th March and 8th March 1948. Tota Ram pleaded guilty to the charge but the applicant denied his guilt. He pleaded that be was ill, that he knew nothing about the excess weight having been carried and that it was Tota Bam who used to engage vehicle for the load.
(2.) I am not concerned with the conviction of Tota Ram because it is Bucha Lai alone who has come up in revision to this Court against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad, maintaining his conviction under 8, 72/124, Motor Vehicles Act. One of the points urged before the learned Sessions Judge was that there was no legal evidence on the record to prove that Bucha Lai was aware that the truck was being overloaded and that consequently he should not be held to have committed the offence charged against him. This objection was overruled by the learned Sessions Judge on the following ground: Section 72 (3), however, lays down that 'No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer' which infringes any of the registered specifications concerning weight. The owner of a vehicle is liable under this section if be merely allows his vehicle to be driven with an excess load, and there is nothing in the section to suggest that the prosecution was under any obligation to produce evidence to the effect that the owner had specific knowledge of the overloading.
(3.) The learned Counsel for Bucha Lai has urged before me that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and that proof of mens rea was necessary for the conviction of the applicant. Before considering this question of law it may be pointed out that the learned Counsel holding the brief of the Assistant Government Advocate has not been able to point out any evidence on the record to prove that Bucha Lai was aware that his servant Tota Bam, the driver of the motor truck, was in the habit of carrying excess weight on the motor truck or that Bucha Lai, in any way, instigated Tota Ram to carry excess weight or even that Bucha Lai ever connived at this illegal activity of Tota Ram. .;