Judgment :- 1. The accused in Summary Case 904 of 1959 on the file of First Class Magistrate of Attingal who has been convicted under S.113 (1) read with S.88 of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 has filed this revision petition. 2. The charge against the accused was that he failed to furnish the information called for by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kilimanoor. The Sub Inspector found the bus KLT. 2633 passing through a road where the bus had no permit to run. He showed the stop, signal, but the driver did not stop the bus. As owner of the bus, notice was given to the accused to furnish the name and address of the driver and the conductor. The accused failed to furnish the details and he was prosecuted. When questioned he denied the offence. The learned Magistrate has found the accused guilty as he received the notice and failed to reply and that he has not adduced any record to show that he is not the owner. 3. To bring home the guilt to the accused it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused is the owner of the motor vehicle in question. Owner is defined in S.2 [19]: "Owner means where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement" The definition is not exhaustive and it must therefore be taken to mean what it ordinarily means, viz., the person in whom the proprietary title vests. It may be taken that the person in whom the registration certificate stands is the person who has got the proprietary title to the vehicle. 4. The prosecution therefore ought to have produced evidence to show that the registration certificate stands in the name of the accused on the relevant date. Merely because he has failed to reply or that he has failed to prove that he is not the owner does not mean that the accused is guilty. The Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum to whom a revision petition was filed has stated that the accused did not when questioned under S.342 say that he is not the managing director of the RKV. The Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum to whom a revision petition was filed has stated that the accused did not when questioned under S.342 say that he is not the managing director of the RKV. Motor service or that the bus in question did not belong to the company. It may be so but it is not for the accused to do it; the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the case set up by them. In fact the accused produced the certificate of registration for KLT. 2633 before the judge to prove that it is not in the name of the accused, but the learned judge did not receive the document in evidence and dismissed the petition on the ground that no interference is called for. The registration certificate has been produced before me and I find that it is not in the name of the accused but in the name of one Mr. Damodaran. 5. It is then stated, that the accused is the Managing Director of the RKV Motor Service. In the first place there is no such evidence. Even if it be so that would not make him the owner. In the case of In re Bhagwant Gopal (AIR. 1943 Nag. 22) the manager of a partnership firm was charged as owner of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held by Niyogi, J., "It does not, however, appear that the Legislature by inserting the definition of 'owner in the Act of 1939 intended to use the word 'owner' occurring in the various sections of the Act in any sense other than the sense in which it is ordinarily understood. Ownership as opposed to possession implies (file with the incidental right of transfer. A person may be in possession and control of a vehicle nevertheless he might not have any title or right to transfer it". 6. This decision has been followed in Uma Shankar Tewary v. Rex, AIR, 1950 All. 234). I respectfully agree with the opinion expressed in the above decisions. The manager of a limited company is merely an agent of the company acting under the control and direction of the directors of the company. By no stretch of reasoning can he be described as an owner of the things vesting in the company. 7. 234). I respectfully agree with the opinion expressed in the above decisions. The manager of a limited company is merely an agent of the company acting under the control and direction of the directors of the company. By no stretch of reasoning can he be described as an owner of the things vesting in the company. 7. The accused in this case is not proved to be the 'owner' of the motor vehicle in question and therefore he is not guilty of the offence charged against him. The result is the conviction of the accused is set aside. The fine if any paid would be refunded to him. Allowed.