JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - There are revisions against convictions of the applicant u/s 72 read with Section 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939). Section 72 authorises the Provincial Government to prescribe conditions for the issue of permits of heavy transport vehicles by the Provincial or Regional Transport Authorities. The Regional Transport Authorities had fixed the maximum load that could be carried in the vehicles belonging to Shyam Sunder Lal. Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 72 makes it an offence for a person to drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer the laden weight of which exceeds the registered laden weight specified in the certificate of registration. The lorries used to ply between Allahabad and Rewa. At a place within the Allahabad District, known as Chak Ghat the weight was checked on several days and it was found that the lorries were carrying weight much in excess of the permissible weight. Shyam Sunder Lal, owner, was prosecuted and in most of these cases the drivers were also prosecuted under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 72. These cases were tried summarily. The drivers in every case in which they were impleaded pleaded not guilty and the plea of Shyam Sunder Lal was also that he was not guilty and that he was the owner of the vehicle. Sub-section (4) of Section 72 provides that where the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer driven in contravention of Sub-section (2) or Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) is not the owner, a Court may presume that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer. Therefore, there could be no presumption of knowledge of the owner or that the lorry was being driven with the laden weight in excess of the registered laden weight in excess of the registered laden weight under the order of the owner of the motor vehicle, where the prosecution is under Clause (b) of Sub-section (13) of Section 72. That was one of the ingredients of the offence that had to be proved. That was one of the ingredients of the offence that had to be proved. The learned Sessions Judge the trial being summary, did not keep note of the evidence, and the learned Deputy Government Advocate had urged that the witnesses may have deposed to the knowledge of the owner or to the fact that an over weight was being carried under the orders of the owner; but that as the point was not taken before the lower Courts there was no mention made in the judgment of the Magistrate or of the Sessions Judge. It was, however, necessary for the learned Magistrate to apply his mind to the various ingredients of the offence and to record findings on which the conviction of the accused was based. From the names of the witnesses given in the judgment of the Magistrate it does not appear likely that they could have deposed to the knowledge of the owner. In any case, there is no finding in the judgments either of the learned Magistrate or of the learned Sessions Judge that the over weight was being carried with the knowledge of or under the orders of Shyam Sunder Lal. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has urged that as the checking went on for several days and it was found that the lorries belonging to Shyam Sunder Lal were over-laden it can be presumed that this was done under his orders as there was no reason why the driver should have the lorries over-laden in the interest of the master. I am afraid it is not possible for me, in the absence of any finding of the lower Courts, to presume that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence has been established. I, therefore give the benefit of doubt to Shyam Sunder Lal and set aside the conviction and the sentences passed against him in these various cases. In those cases to which drivers are parties the conviction of the drivers and the sentences passed against them shall stand. Learned Counsel has not addressed any arguments on their behalf. Fines, if realised from Shyam Sunder Lal, may be refunded to him.