Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Haridwar Sharma on 23 December, 1988
Equivalent citations: II(1989)ACC83
JUDGMENT V. Gopalaswamy, J.
1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 19-6-1984 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, in U.I. Case Mo. 2124 of 1984, refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') and under Section 9 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.M.V.T. Act') said to have been committed by the opposite-party Haridwar Sharma.
2. The facts giving rise to the revision petition may be briefly stated as follows : On 18-6-1984 at 8 p.m. the Traffic Inspector, during the course of his checking of the public carrier vehicle No. OSO 9112, found that the vehicle was running without the route permit, was carrying excess weight than the permitted R.L.W. and the driver did not maintain the trip-sheet. Further it was found that the vehicle was running without a side indicator, numbers in the number plates were not written according to the required size and specification, the hand brake was not in order and the tax token was not affixed to the vehicle. Hence the Traffic Inspector had filed the prosecution report before the court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh at Uditnagar, Rourkela, against the driver Ran Singh and the owner Haridwar Sharma (the present opposite party) under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act which was registered as U.I. Case No. 2124 of 1984. By his order dated 19 61984, the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance against the driver R. Singh. On the driver R. Singh pleading guilty, he was convicted under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act and was sentenced there under to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- on each of the counts. Being aggrieved by the order of the S.D.J.M. refusing to take cognizance against the owner of the vehicle (the present opposite party), this revision is filed.
3. The opposite party Haridwar Sharma was the owner of the vehicle OSO 9112 on the relevant date and the accused R. Singh was its driver. The prosecution report was submitted against the owner and the driver of the vehicle under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act. On the driver of the vehicle pleading guilty, he was convicted and sentenced under the aforesaid sections. In view of these undisputed facts, it remains to be considered whether the impugned order of the S.D.J.M. refusing to take cognizance against the owner is legal and proper.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Das, cited several decisions in support of his contention that the learned S.D.J.M. has acted illegally in refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act against the owner of the vehicle as well.
5. In the decision A. Viswanadham v. State , it was held that Section 42(1) of the M.V. Act prohibits the owner of a vehicle from permitting its user to use it contrary to the conditions of the permit. It was further held that under Section 123 of the M.V. Act the owner of the vehicle allowing its user without the permit is also liable. In that decision a reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Slate of UP. v. Bansraj , wherein construing Section 42(1) of the M.V. Act, the Supreme Court observed thus:
Thus construed Section 42(1) contemplates not only prohibition against the user by the owner of the vehicle or his permitting its user in a manner contrary to the conditions of the permit but it also contemplates that the vehicle itself shall be used in the manner authorized by the permit. The prohibition therefore not merely against the use by the owner but against the use contrary to the conditions of the permit of the vehicle itself.
In Sk. Diljan and Ors. v. State of Orissa 42 (1976) CLT 67, this Court held that the owner and the driver are undoubtedly liable for the offences under-Sections 112, 123 of the M.V. Act. Section 112 relating to general provision for punishment of offences and Section 123 relating to using a vehicle without registration or permit.
6. In Khimajee Patel V. The State 29 (1963) CLT 143, this Court held that Section 42 of the M.V. Act casts on the owner the duty of seeing that a vehicle is not used in a public place except in accordance with the conditions of the permit.
7. In State v. Bhagwan Singh and Anr. , it was held that in a prosecution for running a motor vehicle without any permit at all, the Court may, by virtue of Section 114, Evidence Act, presume that the vehicle was being used on the road by the express or implied permission of the owner.
8. From the above-referred decisions, it is clear that the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle in question are both liable for the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act. Section 112 of the M.V. Act deals with the general provision for punishment of offences. Section 123 of the M.V. Act deals with the offence of using vehicle without registration or permit. Section 124 of the M.V. Act relates to the offence of driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight.
9. Apart from the decisions, on a mere reading of Sections 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act, it is clear that for the offences committed under those sections both the driver as well as the owner are liable, because who ever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used or driven is held liable for the offences committed under those sections. under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act no motor vehicle shall be used or kept for use unless a valid tax token obtained is duly displayed on the vehicle and it would prima facie indicate that the responsibility for such display is on the driver as well as on the owner. So in the facts of the present case, the very fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was found guilty of the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and under Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act, reveals a prima facie case against the owner of the vehicle as well and on that score alone the learned SDJM ought to have taken cognizance of those offences against the owner also.
10. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the learned S.D.J.M. has acted illegally in passing the impugned order refusing to take cognizance against the opposite party, he was the owner of the vehicle in question, under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act. While setting aside the impugned order, I send back the U.I. Case No. 2124 of 1984 to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh at Uditnagar for further inquiry into the case of the opposite party Haridwar Sharma accused of the offences under Sections 112, 123 and 124 of the M.V. Act and Section 9 of the O.M.V.T. Act and direct disposal of the case in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.