050-NLR-NLR-V-36-FERNANDO-v.-NAGALINGAM.pdf
266
GARVIN S.P.J.—Ferdinando v. Nagalingam.
1934Present: Garvin S.P.J.
FERDINANDO v. NAG ALIN GAM
611—P. C. Badulla-Haldummulla, 3,753.
Motor lorry—Driving along prohibited roads—" Maximum weight when fullyloaded”—Meaning of by-law—Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927,ss. 6 and 58.
Where a motor lorry, which when fully loaded would weigh 4 tons13 cwt. 11 lb. was driven along a road over which a by-law prohibitedthe use of lorries, which, when fully loaded exceeds 44 tons,—
Held, the use of the lorry offended against the by-law, even though thelorry and the load it was actually carrying did not exceed 44 tons.
A
PPEAL from an order of acquittal by the Police Magistrate ofBadulla-Haldummulla.
M. F. S. Pulle, C.C., for the complainant, appellant.
H. V. Per era, for accused, respondent.
September 6, 1934. Garvin S.P.J.—
The accused was prosecuted for having infringed certain regulationsmade under the provisions of sections 6 and 58 of the Motor Car Ordinance,No. 20 of 1927, in that he did, on January 24, 1934, at Nugatalawa betweenthe 62nd and 63rd mileposts, drive motor lorry No. X-3320 along a roadspecified in those by-laws as one declared to be suitable for use by lorriesprovided that the maximum weight of the lorry when fully loaded andequipped shall not exceed 44 tons in the case of four-wheel lorries. Thiswas a four-wheel lorry and its total weight when fully loaded was said tobe 10,483 pounds which is 4 tons 13 cwt. and 11 lb. The weight thereforeis said to be 3 cwt. and 11 lb. in excess of the limit set out in the by-law.
Now there is no very precise evidence as to whether this lorry wasloaded and if so what the weight of the load was, but it is contended onbehalf of the Crown .that it is sufficient that the weight of the lorry plusthe weight that it was licensed to carry exceeded the limit of 44 tonsspecified in the rule. For the respondent it was contended, if I understoodCounsel aright, that unless the lorry was actually carrying such a load atthe time at which it was driven which with the weight of the lorry exceededthe limit prescribed, no offence was committed. The appeal, therefore,involves an interpretation of the words “ provided that the maximumweight of the lorry when fully loaded and equipped shall not exceed44 tons”.
DALTON J.—Tikiri Appu v. Dingirala.
267
It is contended for the Crown that what those words mean is that theweight of the lorry plus the weight which it is licensed to carry, and notthe weight of the load it actually carries at any particular point of time,shall not exceed the weight specified. A little difficulty is caused by thepresence of the word ** maximum ” and the word “ fully ” in the expres-sion "when fully loaded”, Counsel for the accused contends that thewords “ maximum weight of the lorry when fully loaded ” imply that theweight of a lorry and its full load may vary and that maximum load hasreference to the cubic capacity of the lorry and not to the weight which alorry may carry. It is clear to my mind that under the provisions of theMotor Car Ordinance a lorry is fully loaded when it contains a weight ofgoods equivalent to the weight which it is licensed to carry. The expres-sion therefore, in my opinion, has reference to weight and not to the cubiccapacity of the lorry. In this view there are only two factors which needbe considered, first the weight of the lorry, and second, the weight whichit is licensed to carry. In any case in which the total of these two weightsexceeds the limit prescribed the offence is committed. It is a matter ofno importance, therefore, that the lorry should be loaded or that evidenceshould be adduced of the actual weight it was carrying. These wordsmust, I think, be construed exactly as they would have been construed ifthe word " maximum ” did not appear in the rule. • The maximum isprescribed later in the rule in so far as it states that the combined weightof the lorry plus that of the load which it is licensed to carry is not toexceed the weight specified.
I would therefore set aside the order of the Police Magistrate. Theaccused will be convicted. As to the sentence, there is nothing to indicatethat this is other than a test case. It is sufficient therefore to pass uponthe accused a nominal sentence, namely, a fine of Rs. 5, in default oneweek’s simple imprisonment.
Set aside.