- (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City recommending that the conviction of the accused Rehman under secs. 3/112, 86/112, 4/112 and 31/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act be set aside.
(2.) PARTIES have not appeared. I have gone through the judgments of both the lower courts and the explanation of the learned Magistrate and have perused the record. Sec. 112 provides punishment for the contravention of secs. 3, 4, 38 and 86. Sec. 3 requires that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle. Sec. 4 provides that no person under the age of 18 years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place and subject to the provisions of sec. 14 no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Sec. 38 provides that subject to the provisions of sec. 39, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of sec. 22 unless it carries a certificate of fitness in form H, issued by the prescribed authority to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made therein. Sec. 86 lays down that the driver of motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce his licence for examination. Sub-sec. (2) of the said section provides that the owner of a motor vehicle or in his absence the driver or other person incharge of the vehicle shall, on demand by a Registering authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle and where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness referred to in sec. 38. Now for the purposes of sec. 3 it is necessary that the offender should be found driving a motor vehicle in any public place without an effective licence. In this case, there is no evidence that the accused was driving the motor vehicle in question in any public place. So far as sec. 4 is concerned, the prosecution ought to have proved that the age of the accused was less than twenty years. There is total absence of evidence on this point and the accused has given his age as twenty five years in his statement before the court. The question under sec. 38 whether the vehicle concerned was validly registered for the purposes of sec. 22, could crop up only if demand for certificate of fitness had been made by an authorised person under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 86. Under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 86 such a demand could be made by a registering authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Shyamlal, head constable, who made a demand for the certificate of registration as well as for certificate of fitness was neither the registering authority nor the person authorised in this behalf by the State Government because under rule 33 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules no police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector could make such a demand. Shyamlal is only a head constable and therefore, below the rank of a sub-Inspector. He had no authority to demand the certificate of fitness or registration certificate and therefore, the inability of the accused to show these two documents to him does not make him guilty of the contravention of sec. 86. The licence too could be demanded when the motor was being driven by the accused in a public place. There is no evidence on the record to show that the accused was driving the motor vehicle in question in any public place when Shyamlal asked for the production of licence. Under these circumstances, I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no offence was made out against the accused. The reference is accepted, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted. Fine if paid shall be refunded. . ;