Order.- In the morning of 10th May, 1953, the bus M.D.K. 877 was running from Vijayawada to Bandar. At about 8-15 a.m. it was stopped at Vuyyur and checked by H.C. 1102. He noticed that there was no tarpaulin in the bus. He therefore laid a charge-sheet against the company represented by its administrator for violation of rule 380 of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nuzwid, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The present petition has been filed to revise that order. The defence of the accused was that there was no rain that day at the time and that therefore he was under no obligation to carry any tarpaulin at the time. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate negatived the contention in these terms: “It was contended for the appellant in the appeal that the learned Magistrate was not correct in-finding the accused guilty under rule 380 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the reason it was not proved that the weather was wet and there was luggage in the passenger bus. On a perusal of rule 380 it is found that it is the intention of the rule that a passenger bus should always have a tarpaulin while on road whether the weather was wet or dry for protecting the samans of the passengers from being drenched in case of rain. For this reason the learned Magistrate was certainly correct in finding the accused guilty.” Now rule 380 is in these terms:- “On or after the 1st day of October, 1940, luggage carried on the outside of a stage carriage shall be protected in wet weather by a suitable water-proof covering. The covering shall be securely fastened so as to prevent flopping.” It seems to me to be perfectly manifest on the language of the rule that before a conviction can be recorded for violation of that rule, the following conditions must be satisfied (i) there must be luggage carried by a stage carriage, (ii) the luggage must be outside the stage carriage, and (iii) the weather must be wet. It is only when all these three conditions co-exist that an obligation is laid to protect the luggage by a suitable water-proof covering. It is only when all these three conditions co-exist that an obligation is laid to protect the luggage by a suitable water-proof covering. If there is either no luggage or no luggage carried outside the bus or if the weather is not wet, the need to protect the luggage by a suitable water-proof covering would not arise. It is impossible to construe the language of the rule in the manner the Courts below have done. The revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on 4he petitioner set aside. The fine, if collected, must be refunded to him. V.P.S. ----- Revision allowed.