STATE Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this case was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate'. First Class, Pathanamthitta, for offences punishable under S.279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under S.89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court instead of sentencing him released him under S.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on his entering a bond for Rs. 1000/- with two sureties for like amounts to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year from the date of the judgment, and in the meanwhile to be of good behaviour. Under S.17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act where a person is convicted of an offence under that Act, or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used, the Court may in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law, declare the person so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as the Court may specify, for holding any driving licence or for holding a driving licence to drive a particular class or description of the vehicle. S.17 (4) of the same Act directs that Court should order the disqualification of an offender convicted of an offence against the provisions of clause (c) of sub-s.(1) of S.87, or S.89 and that such disqualification should be for a period of not less than one month. The question involved in this revision case is whether the Court having convicted the accused for offences under S.89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act should have disqualified him for holding driving licence as directed in S.17(4) of that Act, in spite of the fact that he has been released on probation under S.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I must state at the outset that no decision directly on the point has been placed before me.

(2.) Under S.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person not being under twenty one years of age, if convicted of an offence punishable with fine only, or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less and no previous conviction is proved against him can be released on probation of good conduct, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender.

(3.) The first question that arises for consideration is whether contravention of S.89 would amount to an offence. An offence under S.3(38) of the General Clauses Act means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. S.89 imposes a duty on the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle involved in an accident to secure medical attention to the injured if any and to report the occurrence to the nearest police station. The section does not impose any punishment or penalty for contravention of the duty. No doubt S.17(4) makes disqualification for holding licence for a minimum period compulsory for contravention of S.89. But the language of S.17(1) makes it clear that ordering such disqualification is in addition to imposing other punishment authorised by law. Therefore, the statute presupposes the imposition of a principal penalty or punishment in addition to which the disqualification is to be ordered. In other words, ordering of disqualification is not the main punishment or penalty for contravention of S.89. This leads to the question whether there is any other punishment or penalty for contravention of S.89. This takes us to S.112 of the Act S.112 of the Act states that persons contravening the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder shall if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees. Subsequent contraventions would be liable with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. It follows that contravention of S.89 is punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees. If that be so, contravention of S.89 is an offence which comes under the purview of S.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.