The State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Shivram Salunkhe

motor vehicles act, 1939 - section 56 - motor vehicle - no permission or certificate of registration - driver guilty of offence.;held : by virtue of section 39, if the vehicle is not having required permission or registration under the law, the driver is also liable for prosecution under section 56 of the act. - bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. t.k. chandrashekhara, j.1. this revision application filed by the public prosecutor on behalf of state of maharashtra challenging the order passed by the sessions court, ratnagiri on 21.2.1992 quashing the proceedings of the j.m.f.c. ratnagiri in a.r.t.o. case no. 462/ratnagiri/91. the allegation made in the complaint by the regional transport officer is that the vehicle no. mtj/6729 belonging to the maharashtra transport corporation was driven by the respondent at the relevant time or transporting certain goods belonging to the corporation. at the time of plying that vehicle, it is alleged that it does not possess, the fitness certificate as envisaged under section 56 of the motor vehicle act. on receipt of the complaint, learned magistrate issued process against respondent. respondent then filed revision before the sessions court, ratnagiri and by the order impugned in this case, quashed the proceedings saying that the goods transported in the jeep belonging to the transport corporation and the jeep was driven not in his personal capacity. i cannot appreciate the rationale of the sessions court. admittedly the said jeep was not having fitness certificate at the time of occurrence. by virtue of section 39, if the vehicle is not having required permission or registration under the law, the driver is also liable for prosecution under section 56 of the act. in view of this, reasoning stated to by the sessions court for quashing the proceedings cannot be accepted.2. in the result, i accept the contention of the revision petitioner state and set aside the order of the revision court passed on 21.3.1992 against the respondent. the learned magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.3. in the result, rule is made absolute in the above terms.