Emperor v. Cooverji Nasarwanji

1. Cooverji Nasarwanji was charged with aa offence under s. 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1904 in that his car was driven along a road in Mahableshwar which had been closed for motor car traffic. On the day in question while the accused was at Poona, ia jimotor car belonging to him was driven on a road in Mahableshwar by hia chauffeur Kornalbas, driving over which was forbidden by au order issued by the Buprintendeut of Mahableshwar under s. 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1904.

2. The Magistrate, who tried the accused, found him guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100.

3. The accused appealed. The appellate Oourt modified the decision of the lower Oourt, and convicted the accused of abetment of the offence under s. 13 of ths Motor Vehicles Act, but confirmed the sentence.

4. The accused appealed to the High Court, under its Criminal Revisional jurisdiction, contending inter alia that the lower Court was wrong in holding that unless the accused proved that the driver had orders from him not to ply on the forbidden road, he was liable for the abetment of the offence; and that the lower Court ought to have held that unless the accused was proved to have given orders to the driver to ply as aforesaid the accused could not be convicted under the law for abetment.

5. Mr. K.N Coyaji, for the petitioner:— The driver was responsible for infringing the prohibition. According to the petitioner he had informed the driver of the notification laying down the prohibition. But even if he had not, he was not bound in law to inform the driver what the law of motor aehicles was or whit rules were framed under the law. His neglect to inform his servants, if any, could not amount to abetment of the offence committed.

6. Mr. N.B Chaubal, Government Pleader, for the Crown:— The petitioner being bound to see that his cars were driven in accordance with the law relating to motor vehiclss and the rules made under it, his neglect to instruct his servants and drivers, as to what the law and the rules were, amounted to abetment.

Batty, J.:— In this case the accused has been convicted of an infringement of a prohibition under section 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (II of 1904), and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 under section 13.

8. The prohibition which is said to have been infringed, does not appear to be on the record. The Government Pleader is unable to point to any permit or licence the conditions of which have been infringed. The prohibition in the notification No. 1320 dated 15.3.1906 (1), which is referred to in the Magistrate's judgment, does not purport to be under section 9 but under section 10.

9. On appeal, the Firat Class Magistrate has converted the conviction into one of abetment of an infringement, and it was held that the abetment by the accused consisted in his not informing the driver of the existence of the prohibition. Unless the conditions of the permit required the master so to inform his servant, we are unable to see that any offence has been committed. It certainly would not be an abetment of the offence for the master, to omit to give information to his servant, unless the omission were illegal, that is to say, in disobedience of an obligation imposed upon him by law. No law has been cited to us which imposed on the accused the duty of instructing his servant in the rules.

10. We must set aside the conviction and sentence, and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded.