034-NLR-NLR-V-53-KADIRGAMER-Appellant-and-ROSAIRO-Inspector-of-Police-Respondent.pdf
166
GRATIAEN J.—Kadir gamer v. Rosairo
1951Present : Gratiaen J.
KADIRGAMER, Appellant, and ROSAIRO (Inspector of Police),
Respondent
S. 0. 909—M. C. Mallakam, 952
Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938—Section 42 (1)—Private car—Cannot be usedfor carrying passengers for hire.
Section 42 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance prohibits the carrying of passengerafor hire in a motor car for which the only licence in force is a licence issued inForm 16 appearing in the Second Schedule to the Ordinance.
A PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Mallakam.
/S. Nadesan, with A. Vythilingam, for the accused appellant.
J.W. Subasinghe, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 21, 1951. Gratiaen J.—r
This is an appeal against a conviction for using a motor car in breach-of section 42 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, for a purpose“ not authorised by the licence in force for that cstr ”.
The evidence very clearly established that the appellant had on thedate mentioned in the charge carried a passenger for hire in his motor carwhich was in fact licensed as what is commonly known as a private oar—i.e,. a car “ licensed wholly or mainly for the conveyance of persons(Form 16) as opposed to a ” motor cab ” licensed to carry passengers(Form 17).
Mr. Nadesan has argued with much ingenuity that if the Legislatureintended to prohibit the use of “ motor cars ” as “ motor cabs ”, thelanguage of section 42 has failed to achieve its purpose. He submits.
Mendis Singho v. Attapattu
167
ticat, whereas the word “ passenger ’* is defined in the Ordinance, theword l“ person ” must be given its ordinary connotation and thereforeembraces all members of the human race including “ passengers Iam therefore invited to hold that a licence to “ convey persons ” without^qualification is a sufficient authority to “ carry passengers
The argument is indeed attractive, but does not appear to me to besupportable. A “ passenger ” is defined in the Ordinance as a person
carried in a hiring car ” and is clearly intended to be used in this contextin contradistinction to a person who is conveyed without fee or reward ina motor vehicle other than a hiring car. Moreover, the statutory Forms17 and 18 for licences prescribed by the Ordinance in respect of motoreabs and motor omnibuses adopt the word carry ” as opposed to■“ convey ” and seem intentionally to introduce the idea of a contractof carriage which in law has a special significance inappropriate to the.gratuitous conveyance of persons in a motor car.
No doubt the clear intention of the Legislature might have been couchedin language which would have defied the ingenuity of even Mr. Nadesan.This slight defect has now been remedied in the recent Motor Traffic Act,No. 14 of 1951.
I am satisfied upon an examination of the entire scheme of the Ordi-nance, that the language of Section 42 (1) was intended to, and does interms, prohibit the carrying of passengers for hire in a motor car forwhich the only licence in force is a licence issued in Form 16 appearingin the Second Schedule to the Ordinance. The same view was recentlytaken by Basnayake J. in an unreported case Ediriweera v. Tennekoon 1and, with reference to similar language employed in the earlier OrdinanceNo. 20 of 1927, by Akbar J. in Katugastota Police v. Siyadoris x.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.