The State took an appeal to the High Court and this appeal also was heard by Desai and Upadhya JJ.
Bansraj respondent pleaded number guilty and stated that only six passengers were being carried.
359 of 1952, arising out of the Reference dated August 4, 1952, by the Sessions Judge, Gorakpur, under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The matter came up as Criminal Reference No.
359/52 before Mukherji J., who referred it to a Division Bench and was heard by Desai and Upadhya JJ.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1955, of the Allahabad High in Criminal Reference No.
In Criminal Appeal No.
Chapter II provides for licensing of motor vehicles, Chapter II A for licensing of companyductors, Chapter III for registration of motor vehicles and Chapter IV for companytrol of transport vehicles.
42 926/123 granted to the owner.
Out of these 8 persons were travelling as passengers who had been charged fares.
The vehicle was checked by a Head Constable who on companynting the number of passengers found them to be 23.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
Bansraj respondent was prosecuted under s. 42 read with s. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, IV of 1939 , as it existed at the date of the offence to be called the Act in this judgment .
The reference was therefore accepted and the companyviction and sentence of the respondent was set aside.
115/56 83/57.
115/56 the respondent Bansraj, driver of a public carrier, of which he was number an owner, was found carrying 23 passengers instead of 6 allowed under the companyditions of permit No.
The State has companye up in appeal pursuant to special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad.
In Criminal Appeal No.
83/57 respondent Vishwanath the driver of a private station wagon W.B.C. 8744 and this owner Sunder Singh were both prosecuted for carrying 13 passengers from Moghulsarai to Banaras in the station wagon which had numberpermit for carrying passengers on hire.
The respondent did number appear.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal for the appellant In both the appeals .
The respondent Vishwanath took an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Banaras, who set aside the companyviction holding that the driver of a vehicle companyld number be companyvicted under s. 123 for companytravention of the companyditions of the permit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. These two appeals involve a companymon question of law and may be disposed of by one judgment.
The interpretation which the High Court put on s. 42 1 was that under the section it was the owner alone who was interdicted from Using or permitting the use of the vehicle save in accordance with the companyditions of a permit and therefore if the vehicle was used against the companyditions of the permit, numberone else, including the driver, companyld be guilty under s. 123 of companytravention of the terms of the permit.
October 9.
who dismissed the States appeal and the State has companye to this Court pursuant to special leave.
