093-NLR-NLR-V-36-PODI-SINGHO-v.EDWIN.pdf
MAARTENSZ J.—Podi Singho v. Edwin.
441
Present: Maartensz J.
PODI SINGHO v. EDWINI—P. C. Colombo, 24,170.
Motor omnibus—Failure to proceed to destination—No offence—OrdinanceNo. 20 of 1927, $. 32 (b).
It is no offence for an omnibus to stop short of the destination shownin the destination indicator, when there are no passengers in the buswho are bound for the destination.
^ PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Colombo.
Colvin R. cLe Silva, for the accused, appellant.
March 29, 1935. Maartensz J.—
The accused, the driver of bus No. U1358, was charged with refusingor neglecting to proceed to the correct destination as indicated by thedestination indicator, to wit, Mount Lavinia, in breach of sections .18and 32 (b) of the IVth Schedule to the Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, anoffence punishable under section 84 of that Ordinance. He was convicted
442
MAARTENSZ J.—Thambirajah v. Sinnamma.
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and to three weeks* simple imprison-ment in default of payment of the fine, and his licence was suspendedfor a period of three months.
It was contended for the accused-appellant that there is no sectionwhich penalizes him for not proceeding to his destination when, as inthis case, there were no passengers who had hired the bus to proceed;further.
;Under section 70 of the Ordinance regulations may be made withregard to hiring cars. Section 71 indicates that the provisions as tohiring cars contained in the IVth Schedule shall have effect. The IVthSchedule is divided into two parts. Part I. is headed “ Omnibuses ”.An omnibus, according to section 2, the interpretation section, meansa hiring car having seating accommodation for more then seven passengers.Part 2 applies to motor cabs. A motor cab is defined as a hiring carhaving seating accommodation for not more than seven passengers.I am not sure that the regulations relating to motor cabs could be madeapplicable to omnibuses; but that question does not arise here, for whetherthe regulations in Part 2 apply to omnibuses or not there was in thiscase no person who had hired the bus to proceed further than to thepoint at which the accused turned it and returned to the Fort. Thecharge of which the accused was convicted does not set out the regulationcorrectly. Rule 32 (b) provides that “ the driver of a motor cab shall not,without reasonable excuse, refuse or neglect to drive the cab to anyplace indicated by the hirer: Provided that the whole journey, out andreturn, does not exceed 20 miles’*. There are no words in this rulewith regard to a driver refusing or neglecting to proceed to any placeindicated by the destination indicator.
The appeal must therefore be allowed and the accused acquitted.
* Appeal allowed.