Order. The petitioner was the third accused in the trial Court. He is the Managing Director of A.T.C. Transport Private Company, Limited, Ooty. The Bus M.D.N. 3821 belonging to the said A.T.C. Transport Private Company, Ltd., was checked by P.W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wellington, at 1-30 a.m., on 21st April, 1962 near Culvert No. 243 on the Coonoor-Wellington Road. There were sixty-one passengers excluding the driver and conductor. Though according to the permit the seating capacity was only 34 passengers tickets were actually issued to 44 passengers and the tickets were seized from the passengers by the Sub-Inspector. P.W. 1 is the Permit Clerk of R.T.O.‘s Office at Ooty and he stated that a Special permit Exhibit P-2 was granted to the Bus on 17th April, 1962 for convenience of passengers visiting the Mariamman festival at Coonoor and the bus was authorised to perform four single trips a day from Ooty to Coonoor on the 17th, 20th and 21st April, 1962. On this evidence the third accused was tried for an offence under section 42 (1) read with section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court found the third accused guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200. Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of the permit. Section 123 makes any person who drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of any of the conditions of a permit liable for punishment as mentioned therein. Section 42 punishes the owner of a transport vehicle, whereas section 123 (1) is wider and makes liable the driver as well as any person who causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the conditions of a permit. Mr. K. K. Venugopal the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the third accused who is the Managing Director of the Company, is not the owner of the Transport vehicle. The Company is a juristic person and is distinct from the shareholders. It is the Company which owns the property and not the shareholders. Mr. K. K. Venugopal the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the third accused who is the Managing Director of the Company, is not the owner of the Transport vehicle. The Company is a juristic person and is distinct from the shareholders. It is the Company which owns the property and not the shareholders. Whatever interest the Managing Director may have in the Company he cannot be said to be the owner of the company. “Managing Director” is defined under the Companies Act as meaning a director who, by virtue of an agreement with the Company or of a resolution passed by the Company in general meeting or by its Board of Directors or by virtue of its memorandum or Articles of Association is entrusted with any powers of management which would not otherwise be exercisable by him, and includes a director occupying the position of a Managing Director, by whatever name called. The Managing Director is a person entrusted with powers of management and cannot be equated as the owner of the company. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bensrai1. There it is held that section 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates not only prohibition against the user by the owner of the vehicle or his permitting its user in a manner contrary to the conditions of the permit but it also contemplates that the vehicle itself shall be used in the manner authorised by the permit. If a vehicle is used contrary to the conditions of the permit section 123 provides penalties. The Supreme Court has also held that the words: “ Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 42” used in section 123 would cover both the owner and one who is not a owner and that the driver of a motor vehicle who is not its owner and who drives in contravention of the conditions of a permit under section 42 (1) will fall within the ambit of section 123 of the Act and be liable to conviction. This decision does not in any way support the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. This decision does not in any way support the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. For, if the person is to be convicted under section 123 it has to be established that he drove the vehicle, or caused or allowed a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the conditions of the permit. As the petitioner who is the Managing Director is not the owner of the vehicle, in order to sustain a conviction under section 123 (1) of the Act it will have to be proved that he caused or allowed the motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the conditions of the permit. The evidence in this case is given by P.W. 1 the Permit Clerk and P.W. 2 the Sub-Inspector. P.W. 1 does not state anything about the nature of the work of the petitioner. He admitted in crossexamination that there was a Manager for the Company. The Sub-Inspector of Police who prosecuted the petitioner has not given any evidence indicating that the third accused had knowledge of the obtaining of the Special permit, or of the vehicle being used contrary to the conditions of the permit. The lower Court found the petitioner guilty of an offence under section 42 (1) read with section 123 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the vehicle could not have been taken out for doing special trips on that night under the Special permit without his knowledge or authority. There is no evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove that the vehicle was taken with the knowledge or authority of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is admitted that the Company had a Manager. In the absence of evidence establishing that the petitioner caused or allowed the motor vehicle to-be used in contravention of the conditions of the permit, his conviction under section 42 (1) read with section 123 (1) of the Act cannot be sustained. In the result the petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. K.L.B. ------------- Petition allowed.