THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH versus RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 04-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
v.
RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 2010)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – Conflict
between – The High Court held that road traffic offences shall be
dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and the prosecution of cases of road traffic or motor vehicle
offences under the provisions of the Penal Code is without sanction
of law – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – The position of law is
well-settled – The Supreme Court has consistently held that the M.V.
Act, 1988 is a complete code in itself in so far as motor vehicles
are concerned – 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 – The offences
prescribed under the IPC are independent of the offences
prescribed under the M.V. Act – The legislative intent of the M.V.
Act, and in particular Chapter XIII of the M.V. 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
– 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 – Offences under
Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act, cannot abrogate the applicability of
the provisions u/s. 297, 304, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC – There
is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the M.V. Act
– Both statutes operate in entirely different spheres – General
Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 26.
Doctrines/Principles – The principle of proportionality
between the crime and punishment – In relation to road traffic
offences – discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In view of this Court there is no conflict between
the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Motor Vehicles
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 771
771
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Act, 1988. 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, 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. [Para 6] [787-D]
2. 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, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC have been specifically
framed to deal with such offences. [Para 7] [787-E-F]
3. 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. [Paras 8] [787-G; 788-A]
4. 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 “generalia specialibus nonderogant” is inapplicable, and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
could not have been invoked. The offences prescribed under the
IPC are independent of the offences prescribed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.