iminal Appeal No 10 of 1965
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July lo 1964 of the Mysore High Court in
Criminal Appeal No 223 of 1963
R H Dhebar and section P Nayyar for the appellant
The respondent did not appear
674 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
This appeal by special leave raises the question as to the true meaning of section 421 of the 4 of 1939
The respondent the owner of a motor car bearing No MYU 1089 carried 8 passengers in his said car on Nanjangud Mysore Road on April 5 1963 and collected Rs 5 from each of them
He was charge sheeted under section 421 read with section 123 of the Act for having used the said car as a transport vehicle without the permit required under section 421
The trial Magistrate did not go into the merits though the prosecution led evidence and acquitted him relying on the decision of the High Court of Mysore in Jayaram vs The State of Mysore1
The State took the matter in appeal to the High Court urging that the said decision required reconsideration
On the view that it did not  the High Court dismissed the appeal
Hence this appeal
In BS Usman Saheb vs The State of Mysore2 the question arose whether an owner of a motor car who had carried cement bags and other goods from one place to another without a permit under section 421 could be said to have used a goods vehicle and therefore could be said to have contravened section 421
The trial Magistrate convicted the accused on the ground that once the car was used to transport goods the vehicle was converted into a goods vehicle and required permit
The High Court set aside the conviction holding that the mere fact that the owner of such motor vehicle used it for transporting goods did not mean that the vehicle was converted into a goods vehicle so as to attract section 421
Likewise in Jayaram vs The State of Mysore1 the accused who had his motor vehicle registered as a motor car used it for carrying passengers for reward
The High Court held that the said vehicle having been registered as a motor car as defined by section 216 was not a transport vehicle and no prosecution could lie under section 421
The State of Mysore challenges the correctness of these decisions contending that though a motor vehicle is registered as a motor car if it is used for a purpose set out in section 421 viz carrying passengers for hire or reward the motor vehicle on that occasion must be said to have been used as a transport vehicle and if so used without a permit there would be a breach of that provision and the owner so using it or permitting it to be so used would be liable to be convicted
To test the correctness of this contention some of the relevant provisions of the Act may first be considered
Section 218 Redefines a motor vehicle as meaning any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion 1 2 675 is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source  Section 216 defines a motor cat as meaning any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle omnibus road roller motor cycle or invalid carriage
Clause 25 of section 2 defines public service vehicle as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a motor cab contract carriage and stage carriage
Section 233 defines transport vehicle as meaning a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle
Section 3 requires a person driving a motor vehicle in any public place to have an effective driving licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle and provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do
Section 42 inChapter IV deals with control of transport vehicles
Sub section 1provides No owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority orthe Commission authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in a manner in which the vehicle is being used Section 421 no doubt uses the words owner of a transport vehicle and provides that he shall not use or permit its use in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by the prescribed authority
These words however cannot mean that the sub section applies only to cases where the motor vehicle in question is registered as a transport vehicle
If that were so a person can use his motor vehicleprovided it is not a transport vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward without having to take out a permit for its use asa transport vehicle
Since the section is enacted for control of transport vehicles it could never be the intention of the Legislature to allow such an anomalous result
The sub section therefore must be construed in such a manner as to effectuate the object for which it was enacted
So construed it must mean that if a person owns
a motor vehicle and uses it or permits its use as a transport vehicle he can do so provided he takes out the requisite permit therefor If he does not take out the permit and uses it or permits its use Ls a transport vehicle he commits an infringement of the subsection
What the sub section emphasises is the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle and the necessity of a Permit which is reqred for purposes of exercising control over vehicles used as transport vehicles
This is clear from the definitions of transport vehicle and a public service vehicle
A transport vehicle means a public service vehicle and a public service vehicle means any motor vehicle either used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers for hire or  reward
Therefore any motor vehicle used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward is regarded when so M2Sup
Cl67 14 676 used as a public service vehicle and therefore a transport vehicle
it is the use of the motor vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward which determines the category of the motor vehicle whether it is adapted for that purpose or not
It must follow that even if a motor vehicle is occasionally used for carrying passengers for hire or reward it must be regarded when so used as a public service vehicle and therefore a transport vehicle and if it is so used without the necessary permit such use would be in breach of section 421 and the owner who uses it or permits it to be so used would be liable to be punished under section 421 read with section 123
A similar construction wag given to para 5d of Sch
11 of the Finance Act 1920 and section 14 of the Finance Act 1922 in Payne vs Allcock1 Section 14 of the Finance Act 1922 provided that where a licence was taken out for a mechanically propelled vehicle at any rate under the Second Schedule of the Finance Act 1920 and the vehicle was at any time while such a licence was in force used in an altered condition or in a manner or for a purpose which brings it within or which if it was used solely in that condition or in that inianner or for that purpose would bring it within a class or description of vehicle to which a higher rate of duty was applicable under the said Schedule duty at such higher rate would be chargeable in respect of the licence for the vehicle
The appellant in that case who carried on
business as a green grocer held a licence for a private motor car duty having been paid thereon at the horsepower rate under para 6 Scb
II of the Finance Act 1920
The car was neither constructed nor adapted for use for conveyance of goods but the appellant while the licence was in force used the said car occasionally for conveyance of goods in the course of his trade
It was contended that this user was for a purpose which brought the car within a class to which higher rate of duty under para 5 of Sch
11 of Finance Act 1920 became chargeable
The court accepted the contention and held that the user was for a purpose which brought the car Within para 5 Sch
II of the said Act and the appellant was rightly convicted
It was not in dispute that the car was used by the appellant only occasionally for conveyance of goods in connection with his trade
Negativing the contention that the car was not chargeable to higher duty as it was not adapted
forcarriage of goods Avory J observed that the section referred to cases where the vehicle while the licence is in force had been used in an altered condition or in a manner or for a purpose which brings it within or which if it was used solely in that condition or in that manner or for that purpose would bring it within a class or description of vehicle to which a higher rate of duty is applicable He added that to construe that section one has only to see what was the purpose for which the car was being used which would bring it within the class to which a higher rate of 1 19322 KB 413
677 duty was applicable
The purpose which brought it within para 5 as distinguished from para 6 of Sch
11 was the purpose of conveyance of goods
At palge 421 of the Report it was further observed twhere a licence had been taken out and the vehicle was at any time while that licence was in force used a in an altered condition b in a manner or c for a purpose which brings it within or which if it was used solely in that condition or in that manner or for that purpose could bring it within a class or description of vehicle to which a higher rate of duty is applicable then duty at the higher rate becomes chargeable
 It is thus clear that what brought the motor vehicle under para 5 Sch
II was the purpose for which it was used
Similarly in Public Prosecutor vs Captain R Rajagopalan1 the High Court of Madras held that though rule 30a of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules was intended to apply to motor vehicles used for the express purpose of letting for hire if a motor vehicle was used even once for such a purpose then on that one occasion it was nonetheless let for hire
Hence if a person undertakes to convey goods for reward in his private vehicle on one occasion without the necessary licence he would be regarded as having let his vehicle for hire and would commit an offence under that rule
It was contended in that case that the Legislature did not intend to compel an owner of a private vehicle who ordinarily uses his vehicle for his own purposes to take out a licence merely because on one occasion he conveyed goods for hire in his private lorry
That contention was negatived on the ground that a motor vehicle even if used once for conveying goods for reward would nonetheless be regarded on that occasion as one let out for hire
In Re Manager Indian Express2 a motor car owned by the petitioner was twice used for taking bundles of newspapers from the office of the Indian Express to the Railway Station
It was held that when the car was used for taking the said bundles it came within the definition of a goods vehicle as defined by section 2 8 and therefore permit under section 42 1 was necessary and as the owner had no permit thereunder he was guilty of an offence punishable under section 123
The combined effect of section 421 and the definitions of a motor vehicle a public service vehicle and a transport vehicle is that if a motor vehicle is used as a transport vehicle the owner who so uses it or permits it to be so used is required to obtain the necessary permit
It is the use of the motor vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward which determines the application of section 421
Therefore whenever it is so used without the permit there is an infringement of the subsection
If the construction of that subsection adapted by the High Court of Mysore were correct it would mean that whereas an owner of a transport vehicle is required to have the permit the owner of a motor vehicle not constructed or 1 ALR
2 AIR 1945 Mad
678 adapted as a transport vehicle can carry with impunity passengers for hire or reward without any permit therefor
Section 421 has been enacted for the purpose of controlling vehicles carrying passengers the object of such control being obviously to ensure safety of passengers
The construction accepted by the Mysore High Court would defeat the object for which the Legislature provided such control in the interest of and for the safety of passengers
The view taken by the Mysore High Court with respect is not correct and the view taken by the High Court of Madras is not only correct but is in consonance with the purpose and object of section 42i
The appeal is therefore allowed
The order of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Under section 421 of the  no owner of a trans port vehicle shall use it or permit it to be used in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by the appropriated authority
A transport vehicle means under section 233 a public ser  vice vehiicle and a public service vehicle means under section 225 a motor vehicle either used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward
The respondent was the owner of a motor vehicle registered as a motor car as defined in section 216 of the Act and not as a transport vehicle
He was charged with an offence under section 421 read with section 123 of the Act as the car was used on one occasion for carrying passengers on payment of hire that is for having used the car as a transport vehicle without the requisite permit
The trial court and the High Court on appeal acquitted him on the ground that as section 421 uses the words owner of a transport vehicle the sub section applies only to cases where the motor vehicle was registered as a transport vehicle
In appeal to this Court HELD  It is the use of the motor vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward which determines the category of the vehicle and theappli cation of section 421
Therefore even if the motor vehicle was occasionally used for carrying passengers for hire or reward it must be regarded when so used as a public service vehicle and therefore a transport vehicle  and if it was so used without the necessary permit the owner who uses it or permits it to be so used would be liable under section 421 read with section 123
The interpretation of the High Court would lead to the anomalous result namely  that whereas the owner of a transport vehicle is required to have the permit the owner of a motor vehicle not constructed or adapted as a transport vehicle could carry with impunity passengers without any permit and such an interpretation would defeat the object of the legislature in making the provision in the interest of the safety of passengeii
A B 677 H 678 A B B section Usman Saheb vs State of Mysore and
Jayaram vs State of Mysore  overruled