Case: State Of Mysore Vs. Syed Ibrahim

2. 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 42 (1) read with Section 123 of the Act for having used the said car as "a transport vehicle" without the permit required under Section 42 (1). 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 v. State of Mysore, (1962) 40 Mys LJ 382: (1962 (2) Cri LJ 707). 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.

Reasoning:
5. Section 42 (1) 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 vehicle8. The combined effect of S. 42 (1) 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 S 42 (1) Therefore, whenever it is so used without the permit, there is an infringement of the sub-section. If the constriction of that sub-section 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 adapted as a transport vehicle can carry with impunity passengers for hire or reward without any permit therefor. Section 42 (1) 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 contorl 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 42 (1)It is thus clear that what brought the motor vehicle under para 5, Sch. II was the purpose for which it was used.