Judgment :- 1. This is a revision petition filed by the accused who had been convicted by the Sub Magistrate of Ernakulam for an offence under S.42 (1) read with S.123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act - Central Act 4 of 1939 - (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On appeal to the District Magistrate the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The petitioners thereupon filed a revision before the Sessions Court of Ernakulam, and when that was also dismissed they have come up in revision to this court. 2. The first accused is the owner and the 2nd accused is the driver of motor car No. KLR. 3054. The car has been registered in the office of the Regional Transport Authority in the name of the first accused as a motor car to carry 10 persons. On 19-8-60 Pw.1 the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town, South Police Station checked the vehicle. There was then in the vehicle two big jars containing six gallons of toddy in each of the jars. 3. In having carried "goods" in the car the vehicle has been used as a transport vehicle without a permit in contravention of the provision of S.42 (1). an offence punishable under S.123 (1) of the Act. The petitioners contend that what they were carrying could not be considered as goods coming within the definition of'goods' and it was only the owner's luggage'. In S.2 (7) of the Act ‘goods' has been defined as follows: "(7) "Goods" includes live-stock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle." Toddy carried in such large quantities obviously for sale in the first accused's toddy shop, cannot in any sense of the term be considered to be a luggage or personal effects of the passenger and would certainly fall within the category of goods. That being so, the motor car in question was being used as a goods vehicle without a permit. 4. A similar question arose in the case in Re Manager, Indian Express (AIR. 1945 Mad. 440). That being so, the motor car in question was being used as a goods vehicle without a permit. 4. A similar question arose in the case in Re Manager, Indian Express (AIR. 1945 Mad. 440). In that case the owner of the car used the car for carrying bundles of newspaper to the railway station without a permit under S.42 (1). It was contended that the car being used for carrying newspaper belonging to the owner cannot make it a transport vehicle. The argument was repelled. It was held, where a motor car is used on two occasions for carrying newspaper bundles to the railway station, the motor car is a'goods vehicle' as defined in S.2 (8) and a'goods vehicle' is a transport vehicle by reason of the definition in S.2 (34). Where the car is so used without a permit, the accused commits an offence under S.42 (1) read with S.123 of the Act. 5. The learned defence counsel pointed out that under sub-section (3) of S.42 of the Act, sub-section (1) does not apply to any goods vehicle which is a light motor vehicle and which does not ply for hire or reward. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that whether it will come under the exception and whether in this particular case the vehicle could be termed as a light motor vehicle and whether it could be deemed as plying for hire or reward are all questions of fact to be decided on the evidence and as this point had not been taken up in the courts below and this question had not been specifically raised in the Revision Petition, it is not open to the petitioners to raise this at the late stage for the first time in this court. There is considerable force in the submission made. The conviction and sentence of the petitioners are, therefore, proper and call for no interference. The Revision Petition is dismissed. Dismissed.