VASUDEVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE interesting point that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even assuming that the petitioner was rash or negligent an offence under S. 279 IPC. is not made out in the case since there was nobody in the car and, therefore, no occasion for endangering human life or causing hurt or injury to any person. THE argument advanced is that a conviction under S. 279 IPC. is sustainable only if some person was actually there in a position of danger.

(2.) S. 279 IPC. reads: "whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. " A contention similar to the one raised by the petitioner did not find favour with the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress v. Hormusji nowroji Lord (ILR. 19 Bombay 715 ). It was held that the Court was competent to take into consideration the probability of persons using the road being placed in danger by the act of the accused The above ruling was followed by the Lahore high Court in Emperor v. Abdul Latif (45 Cr. L J. 699 ). The court observed: "no rider or driver can tell when a pedestrian may happen to arrive on a road, consequently he cannot drive or ride rashly or negligently even at a time when the road happens to be temporarily unoccupied by any pedestrian or by any vehicle. And this is so not only because any person or any vehicle may happen to arrive on the road at any time, but also because the driver or the rider is to look to his own safety as well and cannot at all indulge in a riding or driving which may endanger his own life. "

(3.) THE petitioner has a case that at the time of the occurrence, there were cars parked on both sides of the road and the road was packed with school children. This is not an extenuating circumstance. As observed in Emperor v. Abdul Latif (supra) "the more the street is crowded, the greater the diligence and care expected from the drivers. " THE revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed. . .