{1} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2009 1. Sharad Chatur Marathe APPLICANTS Age-25 years, Occ-Nil 2. Govind Laxman Patil Age-38 years, Occ-Nil Both R/o Holnanthe, Tq-Shirpur Dist-Dhule VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Shrimant Mundhe h/f Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for applicants Mr. S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE:16 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. {2} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 2. By this revision, the applicants have challenged the correctness of their conviction and sentence recorded by JMFC, Shirpur in STC No.246/2007 and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Appeal No.16/2007. The trial court has convicted the applicant No.1 for an offence punishable u/s 66 r/w 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation of undergoing SI for 3 months. He is further convicted for an offence punishable u/s 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer SI for 15 days. He is further convicted u/s 130 (1) r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer SI for two days. Applicant No.1 is ultimately convicted for an offence punishable u/s 130 (3) r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer SI for two days. Applicant No.2 is convicted for an offence punishable u/s 66 r/w 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to suffer RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-, in default to suffer SI for three months. Applicant No.2 is further convicted for an offence punishable u/s 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer SI for 15 days. The applicant No.2 is further convicted for an offence punishable u/s 130 (1) r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer SI for two days. Ultimately applicant No.2 is convicted for an offence {3} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 punishable u/s 130 (3) r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer SI for two days. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submission of learned APP for respondent State. 4. Before I embark upon the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to advert to the few facts which gave rise to file the present revision application. 5. It appears that on 20.02.2007, a vehicle, owned by applicant No.2, met with an accident and at the relevant time the same was being driven by applicant No.1. Accordingly, an offence at N.C. Register No.15/2007 came to be registered against both the applicants under the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that at the relevant time, applicant No.1 was driving the said vehicle without valid license and was carrying 35 passengers without any permit to transport the passengers. It is further alleged that applicant No.2, owner of the vehicle, though knowing that applicant No.1 did not possess valid license, allowed him to drive the same and transport 35 passengers. It is also alleged that it was the third offence of the same kind registered against applicant No.2. 6. During the investigation, statements of 3 police {4} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 constables were recorded and accordingly a report was submitted before JMFC, Shirpur. Pursuant to the said report, STC No. 246/2007 came to be registered and the applicants were produced before the learned Magistrate on 21.02.2007. At that time the applicants had preferred an application contending that they are guilty of the charge. Accordingly, plea of the applicants was recorded at Exhibit-6, as contemplated u/s 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both the applicants pleaded guilty and requested for leniency. On hearing the parties, trial court convicted both the applicants as stated above. It appears that the applicants were under impression that they will not be sentenced to actual imprisonment and will be released only on payment of fine. Hence, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, they preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Dhule. As pointed out by me above, the Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal and hence the applicants are before this Court by way of revision. 7, Learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP took me through the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the sake of clarity, it may be useful to reproduce the same 3. Necessity for driving licence. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub- section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically {5} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 66. Necessity for permits. (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contact carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. (2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: 1[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi- {6} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 trailor.] (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise; (b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleaning, road watering or conservancy purposes; (c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; (d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses; (e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety; (f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf; (g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; 2[***] (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms; (j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport {7} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods; (k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle; 3[***] (m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination; (n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify; (o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver. 130. Duty to produce licence and certificate of registration. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce his licence for examination: {8} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 Provided that the driver may, if his licence has been submitted to, or has been seized by, any officer or authority under this or any other Act, produce in lieu of the licence a receipt or other acknowledgment issued by such officer or authority in respect thereof and thereafter produce the licence within such period, in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe to the police officer making the demand. 1[(2) The conductor, if any, of a motor vehicle on any public place shall on demand by any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised in this behalf, produce the licence for examination.] 2[(3) The owner of a motor vehicle (other than a vehicle registered under section 60), or in his absence the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle, shall, on demand by a registering authority or any other officer of the Motor Vehicles Department duly authorised in this behalf, produce the certificate of insurance of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in section 56 and the permit; and if any or all of the certificates or the permit are not in his possession, he shall, within fifteen days from the date of demand, submit photo copies of the same, duly attested in person or send the same by registered post to the officer who demanded it. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "certificate" of insurance" means the certificate issued under sub-section (3) of section 147.] (4) If the licence referred to in sub-section (2) or the certificates or permit referred to in sub-section (3), as the case may be, are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be a sufficient compliance with this section if such person produces the licence or certificates or permit within such period in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe, to the police officer or authority making the demand: 177. General provision for punishment of offences. Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, {9} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. 192A. Using vehicle without permit. (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend lo ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury or for the transport of materials for repair or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose: Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use. (3) The court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.] 8. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicants that so far as applicant No.1 is concerned, he was convicted for an {10} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 offence punishable u/s 66 r/w 192 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer SI for 3 months, however this being his first offence, the sentence awarded to him is too harsh. In my view, considering the present day scenario of meeting the vehicles with accidents driven by the persons without holding valid license and unauthorizedly carrying passengers, I do not think that the sentence awarded to applicant No.1 on this count is very harsh. 9. By drawing my attention towards the conviction and sentence of applicant No.1 for an offence punishable u/s 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is rightly brought to my notice that bare reading of section 181 nowhere disclose any provision for sentence of Rigorous imprisonment. In view of this, the conviction of applicant No.1 u/s 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act though requires to be maintained yet the sentence of RI for 3 months, requires to be modified to Simple Imprisonment for 3 months by maintaining the fine clause. Similarly, it is urged that though the applicant No.1 is convicted u/s 130 (1) and 130 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, however, the complaint nowhere discloses that he was called upon to produce license and permit and he failed to do so. Applicant No.1 has been convicted u/s 3 r/w 181 and hence, his conviction u/s 130 (1) and 130 (3) r/w 177 is unwarranted and hence his conviction u/s 130 (1) and 130 (3) r/w 177 requires to be quashed and set aside. {11} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 10. In respect of applicant No.2, it is rightly urged that applicant No.2 is the owner of the vehicle in question, however, he was not driving the same at the relevant time. In view of this submission and considering the documents on record, conviction of applicant No.2 for an offence punishable u/s 3 r/w 181 requires to be quashed and set aside. It is further urged that applicant No.2 was not present at the spot at the relevant time. Admittedly, the record does not show presence of applicant No.2 at the spot at the relevant time and hence conviction of the applicant No.2 u/s 130 (1) and 130 (3) r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act is unwarranted and requires to be quashed and set aside. However, the opening lines of section 192A makes it clear that if the owner of the vehicle allowed somebody to drive his vehicle in contravention of section 66 (1) then he is liable for conviction as per the provisions of section 192A (1). Bare reading of the provisions of section 192A indicates that if it is a first offence then the offender be convicted and sentenced with fine only, however, if it is repeated offence then the offender to be convicted and sentenced not only with fine but with imprisonment and fine. However, in absence of clear mandate as to whether such imprisonment should be Rigorous or Simple it is rightly pointed out that the applicant No.2 has been wrongly convicted with Rigorous imprisonment while Rigorous imprisonment is not provided under the said section. So far as default stipulation is concerned, under the Criminal Procedure Code, sentence for default is to be imposed of ¼ of the imprisonment. Considering this aspect, conviction of applicant No. {12} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 2 for an offence punishable u/s 66 though requires to be maintained, however, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months requires to be modified and instead applicant No.2 can be sentenced to suffer SI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-, in default to suffer SI for 45 days. 11. Consequently, the criminal revision is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. Conviction and sentence of the applicant No.1 for an offence punishable u/s 66 r/w 192A of the Motor vehicles Act is maintained. Though conviction of the applicant No.1 u/s 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintained, yet his sentence is hereby modified and instead of RI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, the applicant No.1 is sentenced to SI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer further SI fro 15 days. Applicant No.1, is acquitted from the offence punishable u/s 130 (1) r/w 177 and 130 (3) r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and his conviction and sentence for the said offence is hereby quashed and set aside. Conviction and sentence of applicant No.2 for an offence punishable u/s 3 r/w 181, 130 (1) and 130 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. Though conviction of applicant No.2 for an offence punishable u/s 66 r/w 192 A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintained, yet his sentence stands altered. Instead of RI for 6 months, applicant No.2 is sentenced SI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-, in default to suffer SI for 45 days. Both the applicants are directed to {13} Cri. Revision No.221/2009 surrender before JMFC, Shirpur to undergo the sentence awarded, within 15 days from today, failing which JMFC, Shirpur to issue warrant against the applicants. The applicants are entitled for the statutory set off, in accordance with law. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn221-09