K.S. Ghandhi vs The State

Oak, J.—This reference by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Allahabad arises out of a prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the prosecution, a certain person was driving motor vehicle No. U.P.C. 4088 on the evening of 19th March, 1953. The driver of the motor vehicle did not obey the signal given by a traffic constable on duty. It was, therefore, proposed to prosecute that driver. The constable had noted the number of the motor car, but did not know the identity of the driver. K.S. Ghandhi is the owner of the motor car. A police officer enquired from K.S. Ghandhi on 21st April, 1953, as to who was driving the car on 19th March, 1953. The accused replied that he did not recollect as to who was driving the car on 19th March, 1953. K.S. Ghandhi was, therefore, prosecuted for not giving the necessary information as laid down in Section 88, Motor Vehicles Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. He was, however, convicted u/s 112, Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 88 of the Act. An application filed in revision by K.S. Ghandhi was disposed of by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Allahabad. He has recommended that the conviction of the accused is unjustified.

The facts of the case are admitted. The police needed information as to who was driving the motor vehicle belonging to K.S. Ghandhi on 19th March, 1953. On 21st April, 1953 the accused replied that he did not recollect. The question is whether on these facts the accused could be convicted for contravening Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 88 of the Act states:

The owner of a motor vehicle, the driver of which is accused of any offence under this Act, shall, on the demand of any police officer...give all information regarding the name and address of and licence held by the driver which is in his possession or could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by him.

The prosecution has proved in the present case that on 21st April, 1953 K.S. Ghandhi did not disclose to the police officer the identity of the man who was driving the motor car on 19th March, 1953. In order to prove contravention of Section 88 of the Act, the prosecution had further to show that, the information withheld was either in the possession of the accused or that the accused could by reasonable diligence collect such information. It is to be noted that the incident, of which the authorities were making inquiries, took place on 19th March, 1953. Enquiry was made from K.S. Ghandhi on 21st April, 1953. It is not reasonable to suppose that, the accused knew who was driving his motor vehicle thirty three days before the day of the enquiry. I am informed by the Learned Counsel for the parties that, a certain person was in the employment of K.S. Ghandhi at the material time. Had the police officer questioned K.S. Ghandhi as to who was his driver on 19th March, 1953, the accused could easily supply the information. But the question put to the accused was of a different kind. The accused was required to state who was driving the motor vehicle on 19th March, 1953. Now it was very difficult for the accused to say who was driving the motor vehicle at a particular time thirty three days before the day of enquiry. In the circumstances of the case it could not be said that, that information was in the possession of the accused, or that the accused could collect that information with reasonable diligence.

I, therefore, accept the reference. I set aside K.S. Ghandhi's conviction and sentence u/s 112 read with Section 88, Motor Vehicles Act, and acquit him. If the fine has already been paid, it shall be refunded.