JUDGMENT - B.V. CHAVAN, J.:---The State has challenged the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani acquitting the respondent of the offence for contravention of section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 punishable under section 123 of the said Act. 2. Relevant facts are that the respondent was found carrying 20 passengers in the truck driven by him bearing No. MHG 784 on 24-9-1982 by P.W. 1 Suresh Sant, Security Officer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Respondent had no pass or permit in his possession allowing the carriage of passengers in the said truck. Therefore, he was prosecuted for contravention of section 42 punishable under section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. The learned Magistrate accepting the position that factually respondent was carrying passengers in his truck on the date in question without any pass or permit in his possession, came to the conclusion that inasmuch as section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that no owner of the motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of such vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of the permit, do apply only to an owner of the vehicle and not against the driver. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that respondent who was only a driver of the vehicle not being the owner was not liable for prosecution for contravention of section 42 punishable under section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It is this order that is challenged in the present appeal. 5. The point involved is no more res integra. In (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bansraj)1, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 79, it is clearly laid down that section 42(1) is not a penalising section and for its breach section 123 provides the penalties. It is held that section 123 provides for punishment for anyone who drives the motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 42. It is, therefore, held that reading the two sections together, it is not possible to conclude that it is only the owner who is made liable to punishment for breach of sub-section (1) of section 42. It is, therefore, held that reading the two sections together, it is not possible to conclude that it is only the owner who is made liable to punishment for breach of sub-section (1) of section 42. Lastly, it was held that what is made punishable is the driving of the motor vehicle by anyone contrary to the provisions of section 42(1) that is to say, the motor vehicle cannot be driven by anyone contrary to the conditions of permit relating to that vehicle including the driver thereof. In view of this ruling of the Supreme Court, there is no doubt that the respondent who was found carrying passengers in the truck driven by him on the relevant date without there being a pass or permit in his possession to transport such passengers, had clearly contravened the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 42 punishable under section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, he was liable to be punished for the said breach. 6. The result is, Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1989 is allowed. The order of acquittal of accused is set aside and the respondent accused is convicted for contravention of section 42 punishable under section 123 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appeal allowed. -----