INDU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RACHNA Date: 2019.10.05 12:45:23 IST Criminal Appeals is whether the Gauhati High Court was Reason:

2. The Gauhati High Court, Agartala bench vide the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2008 held that:

The prosecution of offenders under the provisions of the IPC is violative of settled principles of law and contrary to the legislative intent of the M.V. Act . [Para 37 and 37.1 of the impugned judgment] x. The High Court directed the States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, and to issue appropriate directions to all subordinate officers to ordinarily register cases against offenders of motor vehicle accidents only under the provisions of the M.V. Act subject to the exception under S. 304 IPC.

3. The present Special Leave Petitions have been filed by the States of Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh before this Court, wherein vide Orders dated 12.05.2009 and 31.07.2009, the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed.

This Court vide Order dated 26.04.2010 granted special leave to appeal, and directed that the stay of the impugned judgment would continue to operate during the pendency of the appeals.

4. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the Respondents. Since there is no contest to the adjudication on the merits of the case, we are not touching upon that part of the judgment.

5. The M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation, the primary objective being to provide a statutory scheme for compensation of victims of motor vehicle accidents; or, their family members who are rendered helpless and disadvantaged by the untimely death or injuries caused to a member of the family, if the claim is found to be genuine.1 The Act provides a summary procedure for claiming compensation for the loss sustained in an accident, which is otherwise applicable to suits and other proceedings while prosecuting a claim before a civil court.2 1 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 713; Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2004) 5 SCC 385 2 Vimla Devi and Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 186 6 5.1 The M.V. Act repealed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 . The need was felt to take into account changes in road transport technology, pattern of passenger and freight movements, development of the road network in the country and particularly improved techniques in motor vehicle management.

In M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty and Ors.3 , this Court made suggestions for raising the limit of compensation payable in motor vehicle accidents wherein death and permanent disablement had occurred, even in the event of there being no fault on the part of the person driving the offending vehicle, and also in hit and run accidents. The said suggestions were taken into consideration by the Legislature and incorporated in the M.V. Act, 1988 .

5.2 Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act, 1988 deals with “Offences, Penalties and Procedure”. It deals with offences relating to contraventions of the provisions of the M.V. Act , or any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder. It primarily deals with offences relating to licenses, driving of vehicles by unauthorized persons, control of traffic, 3 (1987) 4 SCC 284: AIR 1987 SC 2158 7 maintenance of motor vehicles, using a vehicle in an unsafe condition, or without registration or permit, driving beyond speed limits, driving dangerously or driving by a drunken person, or by a person under the influence of drugs, etc. 5.3 The relevant provisions of the M.V. Act,1988 (as they stood at the time of commission of the offence in question) which are necessary to advert to are extracted herein below:

(2) Whoever causes any person who is employed by him or is subject to his control in driving to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of the speed limits referred to in section 112 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees, or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this sub-section, is again convicted of an offence under this subsection, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence punishable under subsection (1) solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness such person was driving at a speed which was unlawful, unless that opinion is shown to be based on an estimate obtained by the use of some mechanical device.

(4) The publication of a time table under which, or the giving of any direction that any journey or part of journey is to be completed within a specified time shall, if in the opinion of the Court it is not practicable in the circumstances of the case for that journey or part of a journey to be completed in the specified time without contravening the speed limits referred to in section 112 be prima facie evidence that the person who published the time table or gave the direction has committed an offence punishable under sub-section (2).

184. Driving dangerously — Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend 8 to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. - Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,--

(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or

(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle.

shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment for term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.

187. Punishment for offences relating to accident. – Whoever fails to comply with the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 or of section 133 or section 134 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, he is again convicted of an offence under this section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

208. Summary disposal of cases - (1) The Court taking cognizance of any offence (other than an offence which the Central Government may by rules specify in this behalf) under this Act,--

(i) may, if the offence is an offence punishable with imprisonment under this Act; and

(ii) shall, in any other case, state upon the summons to be served on the accused person that he--

(a) may appear by pleader or in person; or

(b) may, by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge, plead guilty to the charge and remit to the Court, by money order, such sum (not exceeding the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence) as the Court may specify, and the plea of guilt indicated in the money order coupon itself:

sections (1) and (2), no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against him nor shall he be liable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded guilty.

209. Restriction on conviction. - No person prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 183 or section 184 shall be convicted unless--

(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration, or

(b) within fourteen days from the commission of the offence, a notice specifying the nature of the offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed was served on or sent by registered post to him or the person registered as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence, or

(c) within twenty-eight days of the commission of the offence, a summons for the offence was served on him:

Section 183 and 184 must be read with Section 209 of M.V. Act, which provides that a warning, notice or summons, is mandatorily required to be given for an offence punishable under Section 183 or 184.

5.5 Section 185 of the M.V. Act pertains to the offences of driving after consuming alcohol, or driving under the influence of drugs. Any person who while driving or attempting to drive, (a) has alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. present in his blood, detected by a breath analyser; or (b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent that he is incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence under Section 185 of the M.V. Act.

5.6 Section 187 pertains to offences arising from accidents. The offence is for breach of duty and failure to comply with the 11 provisions of Section 132(1)(c) or Section 133 or Section 134 of the M.V. Act.

Clause (c) of Section 132 (1) was omitted by S. 40 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (w.e.f. 14­11­ 1994); Section 133 relates to the duty of the owner to give information regarding the name and address of, and the licence held by, the driver or conductor, who is accused of any offence under this Act on the demand of any police officer; while Section 134 relates to the duty of the driver in case of an accident and injury to a person, to take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and providing necessary information to the police and insurer of the vehicle about the accident. 5.7 The offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act provide a summary procedure for disposal of cases, which are compoundable in nature under Section 208 (3) of the M.V. Act. Section 208(3) provides that if an accused pleads guilty and deposits the fine imposed, then “no further proceeding in respect of offence shall be taken against him nor shall he 12 be liable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded guilty”.

5.8 The IPC , on the other hand, is punitive and deterrent in nature. The principal aim and object is to punish offenders for offences committed under the IPC . The relevant provisions of the IPC which are necessary to advert to are extracted herein below:

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 304A. Causing death by negligence - Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. - Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished 13 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. - Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

5.9 Section 279 IPC falls under Chapter XIV – “Offences affecting Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency And Morals”, and provides for offences relating to rash and negligent driving which endanger human life.

Section 279 IPC makes rash driving, or riding on a public road, punishable if such rash driving or riding endangers human life, or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. It is the rash or negligent manner of driving or riding which endangers human life, or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, which constitutes an offence under Section 279 IPC.

5.10 Sections 304 Part II, 304A, 337 and 338 IPC fall under Chapter XVI – “Offences Affecting the Human Body” which makes provision for offences relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death by negligence by doing any rash or negligent act, and causing hurt or 14 grievous hurt, by endangering the life or personal safety of others.

5.11 Where the rash or negligent driving results in hurt or grievous hurt being caused to any person, an offence under Section 337 or 338 IPC is committed.

5.12 Where the rash or negligent driving, results in the death of a person, without the knowledge that the said act will cause death, Section 304A IPC would be applicable. In other words, Section 304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death, and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. Negligence and rashness are essential elements of Section 304A. 4 The three ingredients of Section 304­A, which are required to be proved are: (1) the death of a human being; (2) the accused caused the death; and (3) the death was caused by the doing of a rash or negligent act, though it did not amount to culpable homicide of either description. 5 The requirement of culpable rashness under S.304A IPC is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability.6 Criminal or culpable rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the 4 Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (2008) 1 SCC 791; Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 3 SCC 474 :

5 Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 848 : ( 2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 953 6 N.K.V Bros (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 457 15 knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton, and the further knowledge that it may cause injury, but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that the act would probably cause.7 5.13 When a person drives a vehicle so recklessly, rashly or negligently that it causes the death of a person, and of which he had knowledge as a reasonable man, that such act was dangerous enough to cause death, he may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence, and may held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC .

5.14 Sections 279, 304­A, 337 and 338 IPC may be invoked only if the act of the accused is a negligent or rash act. It is manifest from the scheme of Sections 279, 304­A, 336, 337 and 338 IPC that these offences are punishable because of the inherent danger of the acts specified therein, irrespective of the knowledge or intention of the offender.

With respect to Section 304 Part II IPC , the prosecution has to prove that the death of the person was caused by the act of the accused, and that he had knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. 8 To 7 Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 3 SCC 474 : ( 2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 84 8 Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 848 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 953 16 constitute an offence under this Section, the knowledge of the offender as required under Section 300 IPC is to be proved and established.

6. In our view there is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the MV Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other. The penal consequences provided under both the statutes are also independent and distinct from each other. The ingredients of offences under the both statutes, as discussed earlier, are different, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law, has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and M.V. Act.

7. It is pertinent to mention that there is no provision under the M.V. Act which separately deals with offences causing death, or grievous hurt, or hurt by a motor vehicle in cases of motor vehicle accidents. Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act is silent about the act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, or hurt, or grievous hurt, to persons nor does it prescribe any separate punishment for the same; whereas Sections 279, 304 Part II, 17 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC have been specifically framed to deal with such offences.

8. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides, “Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.” It is well settled that an act or an omission can constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, be an offence under any other law. The finding of the High Court that the prosecution of offenders under two statutes i.e. the M.V. Act and the IPC , is unsustainable and contrary to law, is therefore, set aside.

A similar issue arose in the case of T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Rangachari 9, wherein the appellant was prosecuted both under Section 177 of the IPC, and Section 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. This Court held as follows:

9 (1969) 3 SCR 65 : AIR 1969 SC 701 : (1969) 72 ITR 787 18 under both the sections at the same time. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Section 26 of the General clauses Act states:

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court, and held that :

10 Criminal Appeal No. 1195-1207 of 2018, Decided on September 20, 2018 19 enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. The same set of facts, in conceivable cases, can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, an offence under any other law. The High Court ought to have taken note of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as follows:

A perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act would make it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under the IPC merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe penalties. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court on the first point.” [emphasis supplied]

9. The legislative intent of the MV Act , and in particular Chapter XIII of the MV Act , was not to override or supersede the provisions of the IPC in so far as convictions of offenders in motor vehicle accidents are concerned. Offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act , cannot abrogate the applicability of the provisions under Sections 297 , 304 , 304A , 337 and 338 of the IPC. The offences do not overlap, and therefore, the maxim of 20 “generalia specialibus nonderogant” is inapplicable, and could not have been invoked. The offences prescribed under the IPC are independent of the offences prescribed under the M.V. Act . It cannot be said that prosecution of road traffic/motor vehicle offenders under the IPC would offend Section 5 of the IPC, as held by the High Court, in so far as punishment for offences under the M.V. Act is concerned.

10. Considering the matter from a different perspective, offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act are compoundable in nature in view of Section 208(3) of the MV Act, whereas offences under Section 279, 304 Part II and 304A IPC are not.

If the IPC gives way to the MV Act , and the provisions of CrPC succumb to the provisions of the MV Act as held by the High Court, then even cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death, or grievous hurt, or simple hurt by rash and negligent driving, would become compoundable. Such an interpretation would have the consequence of letting an offender get away with a fine by pleading guilty, without having to face any prosecution for the offence committed.

11. This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle 21 accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified.

12. The principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.11 The maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act , is up to only six months; whereas the maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under the IPC in relation to road traffic offences can go upto 10 years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC . The sentence imposed by the courts should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and should have a deterring effect on wrong­doers.12 The punishment of offenders of motor vehicle accidents under the IPC is stricter and proportionate to the offence committed, as compared with the M.V. Act .

13. We thus hold that a prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the IPC and the MV Act, since both the statutes operate with full vigour, in their own independent 11 Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 7 SCC 545 : ( 2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608 12 State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738 22 spheres. Even assuming that some of the provisions of the MV Act and IPC are overlapping, it cannot be said that the offences under both the statutes are incompatible.

14. The High Court has given a contradictory finding by holding on the one hand that the provisions of the Cr.P.C must succumb to the provisions of the M.V. Act , as executive authorities cannot take away a beneficial provision under a special law enacted by Parliament (para 14 of the impugned judgment), while on the other hand, it has opined that the M.V. Act is not a complete code in itself, and there is no complete bar to investigate road traffic offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C . (para 23 of the impugned judgment).

15. In our considered view the position of law is well­settled. This Court has consistently held that the M.V. Act,1988 is a complete code in itself in so far as motor vehicles are concerned. 13 However, there is no bar under the M.V. Act or otherwise, to try and prosecute offences under the IPC for an offence relating to motor vehicle accidents. On this ground as well, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

13 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria , (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 99 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945; Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2007) 13 SCC 446 :

Ordered accordingly.

.......................................J. (INDU MALHOTRA) ...…...............………………J. (SANJIV KHANNA) New Delhi;

October 4, 2019.