124-NLR-NLR-V-57-PEDURU-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-R.-E.-J.-AMARASEKARA-S.-I.-Police-Respondent.pdf
1956Present:H. N. G. Fernando, J.
FEDl'RU FJSllXAXDO, Appellant, and R. K. J. AMARASKKEHA(S. I. Police), Respondent
S. (J. 1,JSG—M. O. Xcyombo, G,1S7
Motor vihide—Omission to provide an efficient bniking system—Elements oj offence—
Motor Traffic Act, Xo. 14 of 19ol, ss. 192, 216, 2-39.
l-'niluro lo maintain the braking system of a motor vehicle in a state of efli-cieiicv in breach of Regulation 4 of tlio Motor Traffic (Use of Vehicles) Regulation*is an offence which is separate ami distinct From tho oflenco of omittingto provide tho vehicle with an efficient braking system in breach of Regulation0 of the Motor Traffic (Construction of Vehicles) Regulations…
Comments oil Thomas Sintjho v. S. I, l’olice, Gamp'iha (l!)54) 55 X. L. It. 3*J5.
from ;i judgment of (ho Magistrate's Court, Xegombo. .
tilanhy dc Zvysti, with Xayttlcstcurani, for (ho accused appellant.Ccunjc Cand-ajijKi, Crown Counsel, for (he Attorney-General.
Cur. ado. vult.
March G, 1956. H. X. G. Fernando, J.—
The appellant has been convicted on a charge of using or driving anomnibus without an efficient braking system in breach of Regulation Gof the Motor Traffic (Construction of Vehicles) Regulations (Gazette.27.2.1952) read with sections 192, 216 and 239 of the Motor Traffic Act,1951. According to the evidence for the prosecution, the vehicle wasequipped with both a mechanical and a hydraulic system of braking,and each system was capable of operation by two means, namely, by thehand brake and the foot brake. There was no allegation in the evidenceof the Examiner that either system, as a system, was not efficient, and herightly conceded that Regulation G only requires one such system pro-vided it can be operated by hand anti bj’ foot. It seems to me thereforethat in regard to its braking equipment the construction of the vehiclewas such as to be in compliance with the Regulation ; for in my opinionthe purpose of that Regulation is only to require that -a vehicle must beiquipped with at least one efficient braking system with two means ofoperation, the efficiency of the system being determined by the soundnessor correctness of the principle on which it operates, and not by the questionwhether any particular component of the system is operating at optimumefficiency. $ An electric lighting system installed in compliance withstandard requirements would not I take it he described as an inejjicicnlsystem merely because some of the light switches have ceased to operatesmoothly.
Hero the evidence was that the foot brakes were 75% efficient, but theefficiency of the hand brakes was nil—indicating that the means ofoperation by foot had become defective or inefficient, a situation for whichprovision is made in Regulation i of the Motor Traffic (Use of Vehicles)Regulations published in the same Gazette :—
“ Kvcry windscreen wiper required by regulation made under thisAct to be fitted to a motor vehicle and every part of every brakingsystem and of the means of operation thereof fitted to a motor vehicleand the steering gear fitted to a motor vehicle- shall, at all times, whilesuch vehicle is used on any highway, be maintained in good andefficient working order ”,
The accused should therefore have been charged for a breach of the latterregulation which deals with the maintenance of the braking systems ofvehicles in a state of efficiency.
I should make a few observations with regard to the judgment inThomas Singho v. S. I. Police, Gampaha.* The attention of the Courtwas not drawn in that ease to the regulation to which I have just referred,—a regulation which to my mind fulfils the purpose which (so far asbrakes are concerned) was served by section 5 of the repealed Ordinanceof 193S and makes punishable the use of a vehicle the brakes of whicharc not in efficient working order.
I also do not agree that the Legislature did not intend that a failureto equip a motor vehicle with an efficient braking system in terms ofRegulation 6 of the Motor Traffic (Construction of Vehicles) Regulationsshould be punishable as an offence. Although sub-section (2) of section21G does not cover the use of a vehicle without an efficient braking system,that sub-section provides that “ if anything is omitted to be done inconnection with a motor vehicle in contravention of …. any
regulation ”, the owner and the driver will be guilty of an offence. Inmy view the terms cited arc wide enough to include the case of a vehiclein relation to which there has been an omission to provide an efficient-braking system or any other equipment- which is required by theregulations to be fitted to motor vehicles.
After consideration, I think the accused in the present ease was entitledto rely on the fact that the charge against- him was laid under the wrongregulation, and on the fact that the evidence led by the prosecution didnot establish the charge act ually framed. He must therefore be acquitted
Appeal allowed.
1-5-i .V. h. II. -j'j i.