# SfATE OF MYSORE v. SYED mRAlllM

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 673
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-02-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1965
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sfate-of-mysore-v-syed-mralllm-4169
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles A,ct (4 of 1939), s.r. 42(1) and 123-"0wner of a
transport Vehicle", meaning of.
Under s. 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, no owner of a transport vehicle shall use it or permit it to be used in any public place save
ID accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by the appropriate
authority.
A. "transport vehicle" means, μnder s. 2(33) a ''public service vehicle" and· a ''public service vehicle" means, .under s. 2(2S), a
motor vehicle either used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengen for hire or re'fard. The respondent was the owner of a motor
vehicle registered as a "motor car" as defined in s. 2( 16) of the A.ct and
not, as a "trans.P.Qrt vehicle". He was
charged with an offence under
a, 42(1) read withs. 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
s, 42(1) uses the words "owner of a transport vehicle" the sub-section
applies only to cases where the motor vehicle was registered as a transport
Yehicle.
Jn ":l'l'""1 to thia 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 the applic~
of a. 42( 1). Therefore, . even if the motor vehicle was occasionally
used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, it must be regarded when
ao uaed11 as a "public service vehicle" and therefore a "transport vehicle"
and, if it was so used without the necessary permit the oWller who uses
it or permits it to be so used would be liable under s. 42(1) read with
s. 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 ~¥ permit, and such an interpretation would defeat the object
of the legislature in making the provision in the interest of the safety of
passengen. [67S F; 676 A-B; 677 H; 678 A-BJ
B. S. Usman Saheb v. State of Mysore, (19S9) Mys., L.J. 388 and
layaram v. State of My110re, (1962] Mys. L.J. 382, overruled.

## Text

•
c
D
I
'
G
H
SfATE OF MYSORE
v.
SYED mRAlllM
February 21, 1967
[J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.j
Motor Vehicles A,ct (4 of 1939), s.r. 42(1) and 123-"0wner of a
transport Vehicle", meaning of.
Under s. 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, no owner of a transport vehicle shall use it or permit it to be used in any public place save
ID accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by the appropriate
authority.
A. "transport vehicle" means, μnder s. 2(33) a ''public service vehicle" and· a ''public service vehicle" means, .under s. 2(2S), a
motor vehicle either used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengen for hire or re'fard. The respondent was the owner of a motor
vehicle registered as a "motor car" as defined in s. 2( 16) of the A.ct and
not, as a "trans.P.Qrt vehicle". He was
charged with an offence under
a, 42(1) read withs. 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
s, 42(1) uses the words "owner of a transport vehicle" the sub-section
applies only to cases where the motor vehicle was registered as a transport
Yehicle.
Jn ":l'l'""1 to thia 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 the applic~
of a. 42( 1). Therefore, . even if the motor vehicle was occasionally
used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, it must be regarded when
ao uaed11 as a "public service vehicle" and therefore a "transport vehicle"
and, if it was so used without the necessary permit the oWller who uses
it or permits it to be so used would be liable under s. 42(1) read with
s. 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 ~¥ permit, and such an interpretation would defeat the object
of the legislature in making the provision in the interest of the safety of
passengen. [67S F; 676 A-B; 677 H; 678 A-BJ
B. S. Usman Saheb v. State of Mysore, (19S9) Mys., L.J. 388 and
layaram v. State of My110re, (1962] Mys. L.J. 382, overruled.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 10
of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
July 10, 1964 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
223 of 1963.
R. H. Dhebaf and S. P. Nayyar, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
674
(!967) 21.c.a.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J, This appeal, by special leave, raises the questio11
as to the true meaning of section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
(4of1939).
The respondent, the owner of a motor car bearing No. MYU108'.I, carried 8 passengers in his said car on Nanjangucl-Mysore
Road on April 5, 1963 and collected Rs. 5 from each of them.
He was char6e-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( I). The trial Magistrate
did not go into the merits though the prosecution led evidence and
acquitted him relying on the decision of ,the Hifh Court of Mysore
in Jayaram v. The State of Mysore('). 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 B.S. Usman Saheb v. The State of Mysore(') the question
arose whether an owner of a motor car who had carried cement bags
and .:ither goods frorr. one place to another without a permit under
section 42(1) could be said to have used a "goods vehicle", and,
therefore, could be said to have contravened section 42(1). The
trial Magistrate convicted the accused on the ground that once the
rar 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 a
motor vehicle used it for transporting goods did not mean that the
vehicle was converted into a "goods vehicle" so as to attract section
42(1). Likewise in Jayaram v. T/1e State of Mysore(') the accused
who had his motor vehicle registered as a motor car used it for
carrying passengers for reward. The High Court held that tho
said vehicle having been registered as a moior car as defined by
section 2(16) was not "a transport vehicle" and no prosecution could
lie under seclion 42(1). The State of Mysore challenges the correctness of these decisions contending foat ~hough a motor vehicle is
re;:istercd as a motor car, ifit is used for a purpose set out in section
42(1) 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 ...,ithout a permit, there would be a breach
of that provision and the owner so using it or permitting it to be
so used would he liable to be convicted.
To test the correctness of this contention, some of the relevant
pre .. sions of the Act may first
be considered. Section 2(18)
defines a "motor vehicle" as meaning any mechanically-propelled
vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion
(I) (1962) Mys. L.J. 382.
(2) 11959) Mys. L.J. 388.
•
c
D
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
..
H
MYSORE V. SYEO IBRAHIM: (She/at, /.)
675
is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. Section
2(16) defines a "motor car" as meaning any motor vehicle other
than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, motor cycle or invalid carriage. Clause 25 of s. 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 2(33) defines an "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 in Chapter IV deals with control of transport ·vehicles.
Sub-section (1) provides: "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 or the Commission authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in a manner
in which the vehicle is being used."
Sel.'tion 42(1) no doubt uses the words "owr:er of a cransport
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 vehicie . in question is registered as a transport
vehicle. If that were so, a person can use his motor vehide, provided
it is not "a transport vehicle'', for carrying passengers for hire or
reward without having to take out a permit for its use as ,.a 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 mu~t 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 reqttisite permit therefor.
If he does not take out the permit and uses it or permits its use _s
"a transport vehicle" he commits an infringeme1,t of the sub-section.
What the sub-section emphasises is the use of a motor vehicle as a
transport vehicle and the necessity of a permit which is required
for purposes of exercising control over vehicles usee as transport
vehicles. This is clear from the definitions of "transport vehicle"
and a "public service vehicle". A "transport vehicle" means a
"rublic service vehicle" and "a public service vehicle" means any
motor vehicle either used or adapted to be used for carriage of
p!ISSengers for hire or reward. Therefore, any motor vehicle used
for carriage of passengers for hire or reward is regarded when so
M2Sup. CI/67-14
676
SUPll.BMI! COUll.T ll.P.POll.TS
(1967] 2 S.C.R.
used as a public service vehidc ai1d therefore a transport vehicle.
A
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 can'ying passengers for
hire or reward it must he regarded when so used as a public service
vehicle and therefore a transport vehicle and if it is so used without
B
the necessary permit such use would be in breach of s. 42(1) and
the owner who uses it or permits it to be so used would be liable to
be punished under s. 42(1) .cad withs. 123.
A similar construction was given to para 5(d) of Sch. II 'of the
Finance Act, 1920 and section 14 of the Finance Act, 1922 in Payne
v. Allcock.(') Section 14ofthe 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, i!Sed
in an altered condition or in a manner or for a purpose wl4ch
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 was applica:;:
under the said Schedule, duty at such higher rate would be chargeable in respect of the licence for the vehicle. The appellant in that
c.ase, 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, Sch. 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
f.~rce, used
the said car occasionally for conveyance of goods in the course of
his tr~de. It was
contended that this user was "for a purpose"
which brou!?ht the car within a class to which higher rate of duty
under para 5 of Sch. II 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 w~s not in dispute
that the car was used by the appellant only oc:Casionally for conveyance of goods in connection with his trade. Negativing the
contention that the car was not chargeable to highr.r duty as it
was not adapted for carriage 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 useci solely in that
<:ondition or in that manner ar 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) (1932! 2 K.D. 413.
c
D
It
F
G
H
•
A
B
c
D
F.
,
G
R
MYSORE v. SYED lBRAHIM (Shelat, /.)
677
duty was applicable. The purpose which brought it within para 5,
as distinguished from para 6 of Sch. II, was the purpose of conveyance of goods. At page 421 of the Report it was further observed,
"where 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
wa' the purpose for which it was used.
Similarly in Public Prosecutor v. Captain R. Rajagopalan(') the
High Court of Madras held that though rule 30(a) of the Madras
Motor Vehicles Rules was intended to apply to motor vehicles used
for the express purpose of Jetting for hire, if a motor vehicle was
used even once for such a purpose, then, on that one occasion it
was nonetheless let for him. Hence if a person undertakes to convey
goods for reward in his private vehicle on one occasio11 without the
necessary licence he woulc! 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 o'Jt 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 Express(2) 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 d~finition of a
"goods vehicle" as defined by s. 2 (8) and, therefo:·e, permit under
s.42(1)was necessary and as the owner had no permit thereunder,
he was guilty of an offence punishable under s. 123.
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 construction of that subsectiou 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 veaicle not constructed or
(I) A.LR. 1933 Mad. 233.
(2) A.I.R. 1945 Mad. 440..
678
SUPllEMB COUil T llEPOR TS
[1967] 2 S.C.R.
adapted as a transport vehicle can carr:1 with impunity passengers
A
for hire or reward without any permit therefor.
Section 42(1)
has been enacted for the purpose ,,f runtrolling vehicles c.'lrrying
passengers, the object of such c,rntrol being obviously to ensure
safety of passengers. The construction accepted by the Mysore
High Court would
defeat the 0 bjcct for which the Legislature
provided such contrcl in the interest of and for the safety of pasB
sengers. The view taken :,y tne Mysore High Court with respect
is not correct and the view taken hy the High Court of Madras is
not only correct but is in consonance with the purpose and oilject
of s. 42(1).
The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of acquittal
passed by the trial Magistrate anJ confirmed by the High Court
C
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.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.