DE KRETSER J.—Perera v. Rajakariar.475
1939Present: de Kretser J.
PERERA v. RAJAKARIAR.590—M. C. Negombo, 25,567.
Motor car—Definition of overhang—Rear flap door of car‘not to be taken intoaccount—Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, Schedule I., Reg. 2.
The length of the rear flap door of a motor lorry, when it is opened,should not be taken into consideration in measuring its “ overhang
^j^PPEAL. from a conviction by the Magistrate of Negombo.
S. W. Jayasuriya, for accused, appellant.
Jansze, C.C., for complainant, respondent.
December 8, 1939. de Kretser J.—
Section 2 of the first schedule of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of1938, makes provision regulating the dimensions of motor cars used on ahighway outside Colombo. It provides for the width of a car includingthe load. It provides for the height including the load. It provides for awheel-base and wheel-base is defined in section 30 of the Schedule. Thenit also provides that the overhang of any motor car must not exceed acertain space, and in a proviso the Commissioner is authorized to permitthe use of motor cars with overhang in excess of the above limits.
If the Ordinance had ended there, there might have been some doubtas to the interpretation of the word “ overhang ”, but the word wasdefined in the repealed Ordinance in exactly the same way as it is definedin section 30 of the Schedule; and that definition makes jt “ the horizontaldistance between a vertical line drawn through the centre of the rear axleand a vertical line drawn at the extreme end of the rear of the body ”.Even if the expression had been “ rear of the car ” I do not think therecould have been any doubt as to the meaning of the words; but theexpression here used is “ rear of the body ” and quite obviously the word“ body ” is used in its ordinary significance. The Ordinance is one whichis meant to regulate everyday affairs, and which quite simple people willhave to comply with, and the ordinary rule of interpretation that thepopular meaning must be given to a word must be adhered to. I do notthink any ordinary person would imagine that' the flap door of a carformed an extension of its body when that flap door was opened.
1 (1913) 108 Law Times 806.
DE KRETSER J.—Perera v. Rajakariar.
What the accused in this case seems to have done was to let down theHap door of the lorry and to have loaded goods on the flap door so lowered.That may or may not be an offence regarding the loading of lorries, butI do not think it can be taken as constituting an offence against section 2which only regulates the dimensions of a motor car.
The section made provision for loads which might be included in thewidth or height. It made no provision for including a load in an over-hang. In section 11 (6) there is provision made for the load of amotor car projecting behind the car, so that apparently the Legislaturedid not object to the load of a car projecting behind the back of the carwhen it was defining in section 2 the dimensions of a car.
In my opinion the body of a car must be measured with its doors closed,because otherwise whenever a car or lorry door is left open an offence maybe committed.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
PERERA v RAJAKARIAR