ORDER
Sarjoo Prosad, J.
1. The facts of the case have been fully stated in the letter of reference sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. The accused were convicted for an offence under Section 3, Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 112 of the said Act, and the offence alleged against them was that they were driving a motor vehicle without an effective license in contravention of Rule 4(b) of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 4(b) provides that no person shall drive a “public service vehicle” unless authorisation has been granted or countersigned by or under the authority of a Regional Transport Authority within the province. It is pointed out that in the present case the license referred to a goods truck which was not a public service vehicle as defined in Section 2(25), Motor Vehicles Act.
A goods truck is not a public service vehicle. but a “goods vehicle” as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act, and as such the provisions of Rule 4(b) had no application whatsoever, and, there was really no contravention of any rule in driving the truck without having the license countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority within the province. The definition of “transport vehicle” as given in Section 2(33) supports
the same conclusion and obviously makes a distinction between a “public service vehicle” and a “goods vehicle”. The point undoubtedly is unanswerable, and the learned Magistrate in convicting the accused has failed to distinguish between a public service vehicle and a goods truck. There was, therefore, no offence committed by the accused, who should be acquitted of the charge. The order of conviction passed against them under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act should be set aside. The fines, if paid, should be refunded.
2. The reference is accordingly accepted.
