' Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner is employed as Motor Vehicle Driver with Messrs Shifa Medico, a registered firm of partnership, which carries on a variety of business including plying of ambulance vehicles for carrying sick and injured persons and also for carrying dead bodies.
2. The petitioner drives one such ambulance vehicle bearing No, LHD/5299.
3. On 20th June, 1983, the ambulance vehicle was hired by some persons for carrying a dead body from the Mayo Hospital, Lahore to Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar.
4. After leaving the dead body at Haroonabad, the petitioner drove back the ambulance vehicle, on 22nd of June, 1983. When he reached near Wan Radha Ram, he parked his vehicle for urinating. In the meantime, Syed Sajid Hussain Sherazi, Assistant Commissioner, Chunian, came from behind on the motor car and required the petitioner to show him the papers of the ambulance. The petitioner produced his driving licence, the registration certificate of the vehicle, the insurance certificate of the vehicle and tax token of the vehicle. The Assistant Commissioner demanded route permit of the vehicle and the petitioner showed him photostat copies of letters, dated 19th December, 1958 and 10th February, 1980 from Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, to Messrs Shifa Medico, informing that ambulance vehicles were exempt from getting route permits. The Assistant Commissioner, however, directed the Police to take action against the petitioner and consequently ambulance was seized by the Police and the petitioner was challaned under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.
5. The petitioner, through the present petition seeks quashment of the aforementioned criminal proceedings initiated against him.
6. It is contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and that he was driving the ambulance at the relevant time for which no route permit was required.
7. It transpires from the contents of the challan from (Annexure 'C') that the petitioner has been charged for offence punishable under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance. As a matter of fact, section 115 empowers a police officer or any person authorized in this behalf by the Government to seize the vehicle if it was being used in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 23 or without the permit required by subsection (1) of section 44. The penal clause under Motor Vehicles Ordinance when a vehicle is used without permit is contained in section 106. It is provided in section 106 that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used or lets out a motor vehicle for use in contravention of the provisions of subsection (I) of section 44 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs, 500.
8. Subsection (1) of section 44 ibid provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of, and no driver of a transport vehicle shall drive or cause or permit to be driven the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit authorizing the use or driving of the vehicle in such place granted or countersigned by a regional or provincial transport authority. Subsection (3) of section 44, however, is to the effect that subsection (1) shall not apply to the vehicles of eight categories as detailed in the clauses (a) to (h) of subsection (3) of section 44 ibid. According to the clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 44, subsection (1) of section 44 is not applicable to any 'emergency vehicle'.
8. The expression 'emergency vehicle' has been defined in section 2, clause (8) whereby 'emergency vehicle' means a motor vehicle used solely for Police, fire-brigade or ambulance purposes or to releave distress.
9. Similarly, according to clause (e) of subsection (3) of section 44 ibid, subsection (1) of section 44 is not applicable to any transport vehicle, used solely for conveyance of corpses.
10. It is thus evident from the above analysis of the aforementioned relevant legal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 that in case of vehicles used as ambulance, permit was not required to be obtained under subsection (1) of section 44 and no offence was thus committed by the petitioner while driving an ambulance vehicle without a route permit. Action under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance could also not be taken against him.
11. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed with costs and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner which are pending before Assistant Commissioner, Chunian, are hereby quashed.