P L D 1960 W (PLP)

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 21 (1)‑Mechanic testing vehicle on road‑No violation of S. 21 (1)‑Plying means plying for hire or reward. A I R 1936 Pat. 321 (1) rel. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Mahmood Sadiq for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of R. T. A., Lahore, passed at its meeting on the 26tH January, 1900. The petitioner's permit was suspended for a period of one month for plying without a fitness certificate and for a further period of one month for allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person not holding a driving license. The fitness certificate of his vehicle expired on 23‑5‑1959. On the 24th he handed it over to Azad Motor Workshop for repairs. Some repairs were carried out on the 25th and 26th and the petitioner appeared before the inspection Board again on the 27th May for inspection. It was found that repairs were not complete and the petitioner left the vehicle again with the Azad Motor Workshop for repairs. Eventually the certificate of fitness was obtained on the 29th May. On the 27th May, however, his vehicle was found being driven by a machine of the Workshop named Manzoor Ahmad and the petitioner was held up for the above‑mentioned offences and his permit was suspended for a total period of two months. In appeal before me the petitioner contends that the vehicle was being tested by the mechanic of the Workshop and was not being driven in the sense required under section 22 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 21 (1) requires that no vehicle shall be driven for carrying passengers or goods unless it is registered and section 38 (1) requires that no vehicle shall be deemed to be validly registered until the registration is supported by a certificate of fitness. Now it is a fact that the vehicle was not being driven for carrying passengers or goods as required under section 22 (1). The R. T. A. has punished the petitioner for `plying' without fitness certificate. But `Plying' means plying for hire or reward as held in A 1 R 1936 Pat. 321 (1). There is no evidence either in the prosecution report or otherwise to show that the vehicle was being driven for carrying passengers or goods and the petitioner's version that Manzoor Ahmad the mechanic of the Workshop, was testing the vehicle on the road is more likely to be true. Therefore this part of the charge is not sustainable, As regards the other charge that he allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not holding a driving licence, this is also not sustainable. Manzoor Ahmad, the machenic of the Azad Motor Workshop, was prosecuted for driving the vehicle without permit but the A. D. M. Lyallpur acquitted him for lack of evidence. Manzoor Ahmad has himself filed an affidavit to show that he possessed a driving licence and produced it in the Court which resulted in his acquittal. He has also stated in this affidavit that he was testing the vehicle on the road for which he was challaned. I asked the representative of R. T. A. whether the petitioner or his driver or some servant was present in the vehicle when it was being driven by Manzoor Ahmad. The representative of the R. T. A. could not give any information whatsoever on this point. Nor is this matter clarified in the prosecution report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner allowed Manzoor Ahmad to drive the vehicle. In any case his acquittal in the criminal case has exonerated him of this charge. Thus none of the two charges is established and the appeal is accepted and the order of the R. T. A. is set aside. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.