Ashworth, J.:— This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Etawah submitted through the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri.
A Magistrate issued a notice to the driver of a motor vehicle to produce his licence and fined him Rs. 15 for not doing so. The District Magistrate is of the opinion that the notice was illegal as it was not delivered by the Magistrate to the driver on the road, but was an order requiring the driver to attend the Magistrate's house or court with his licence. The Magistrate pleads that the order was permissible under rule 21 of the Motor Rules. This rule has nothing to do with the matter and the following rule 22 must be intended. The rule runs:—
“The issue of a licence to a driver of motor vehicles in the United Provinces shall not be necessary in the case of a person duly licensed to drive in any other province; provided that such person shall produce his licence when so required by any Magistrate or police officer in the United Provinces.”
It appears that the Superintendent of Police informed the District Magistrate that the accused was duly licensed in the United Provinces. He was not, therefore, a person licensed to drive in another province and not licensed in the United Provinces and it is only to such a person that rule 22 applies. The only provision of law applicable to a driver with a licence to drive in the United Provinces is section 8 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914, which requires a driver to produce his licence upon demand by any police officer. No person is a driver within the meaning of this section 8 unless driving. In this case the accused was neither a driver, nor called on by a police officer to produce his licence. If rule 22 had been applicable, I am not prepared to hold that demand, by the Magistrate could only be made from a person actually driving. The rule speaks of a person and not a driver. The conviction, however, was for the reason stated had in law and is hereby set aside. The fine, if paid, will be returned.
Conviction set aside.