JUDGMENT Allsop, J. - One Har Prasad was convicted in two cases of contraventions of R. 83, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, and was fined Rs. 10 in each case. The learned Sessions Judge of Muttra has referred both the cases to us, because he is of the opinion that no offence was committed. Rule S3 in so far as it is relevant is as follows : No person shall work as a conductor of a stagecarriage, and no employer shall so employ any person, unless such person holds a conductor's license. 2. The finding of fact is that Har Prasad's motor bus or motor lorry which was licensed to carry more than 12 passengers was being used on each occasion without the assistance of a conductor. In one case at least into which we have looked, it appears that Har Prasad stated that he was driving the lorry or bus and that he had with him a cleaner, but it is quite clear that he had at least no licensed conductor. The learned Judge has referred to R. 78, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, which is as follows : (a) No transport vehicle authorized to carry more than twelve passengers, or, where passengers and goods are carried, authorized to carry a combined load of passengers and goods in excess of 15 cwt., shall be driven in any public place for the conveyance of passengers unless there is carried on such vehicle in addition to the driver, an attendant, and no such attendant shall be less than eighteen years of age, (b) The attendant shall be carried at the rear of the vehicle to signal to the driver the approach of other traffic from behind and to attend on the passengers and to assist them where necessary in entering and leaving the vehicle. 3. The learned Judge suggests that there is no provision in this rule that a conductor shall be carried on such a vehicle, and he says that R. 83 does not direct that any conductor shall be carried. We may assume that in the other case the facts were similar. The learned Judge has been influenced by the fact that R. 78 originally provided that a conductor or an attendant should be carried in the transport vehicles with which the rule deals, but that the word "conductor" was later deleted by an amendment. We may assume that in the other case the facts were similar. The learned Judge has been influenced by the fact that R. 78 originally provided that a conductor or an attendant should be carried in the transport vehicles with which the rule deals, but that the word "conductor" was later deleted by an amendment. He has made a distinction between as attendant and a conductor. He seems to us to have overlooked the fact that Har Prasad was not convicted of a breach of R. 78, but of a breach of R. 83. We do not think that there is any reason for us to interfere with the convictions and the sentences, because in substance, Har Prasad was guilty of a breach of the rules. If he had no attendant at all, he was guilty of a breach of R. 78. On the other hand, if he had as he says he had an attendant, that is a clearer, but this attendant wag not licensed to perform the duties of a conductor, then he was rightly convicted of breach of R. 83. We think that some confusion has been caused about the meaning of the word 'conductor.' In the Oxford English Dictionary, this word is defined as meaning an official who has charge of the passengers, collection of fares, and generally directs the proceedings of an omnibus. It is clear that the attendant to whom reference is made in R. 78, is a conductor within the meaning of that word as defined in the dictionary. The word is also defined in the Motor Vehicles Rules 1940. The definition is in the following terms : 'Conductor,' in relation to a stage carriage, means any person appointed by the registered owner and authorized by the registering authority in this behalf to travel on the said vehicle and to discharge the duties of the conductor of the said vehicle. 4. According to this definition, a conductor would only mean a licensed or authorized conductor and it might be suggested that this would lead to some confusion in R. 83, but we must point out that R. 83 does not say that no person shall be a conductor or be employed as a conductor but that no person shall work as a conductor or shall be employed to work as a conductor. The definition in the rules is not properly speaking a definition, because it implies that the meaning of the term 'conductor' is already known where it speaks of a person being appointed or authorized to discharge the duties of the conductor of the vehicle. We think, therefore, that we must treat the word 'conductor' as used in its ordinary sense, and, in our judgment, the meaning of Rr. 78 and 83 read together is that no vehicle authorized to carry more than twelve passengers shall be driven unless there is carried on it an attendant, and that such an attendant where the vehicle is a stage carriage, must have a licence according to the provisions of the later rule. We would, however, suggest to the local Government that they might examine their rules with a view to their amendment as they are somewhat confusing to the Courts that have to enforce them. If the term 'attendant' were substituted for the word 'conductor' in R. 88 the position would be clearer. As the rules at present stand, there is apt to be no sufficiently clear distinction between an attendant who is not a conductor and one who is a conductor for the purposes of R. 83. With these remarks we reject both the references.