JAYANTILAL RUPCHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted under section 279 and 338 I. P. Code and sections 116 and 121 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In revision it is urged that the finding of rashness and negligence is not sound. It is true that rashness or negligence though questions of facts are inferences from facts. The facts found are that two carts were coming from opposite directions on the road and the applicant took his jeep car on the extreme left of the road and struck a tree and injured the person standing near the tree. On these facts the inference of rashness and negligence would be quite sound and I cannot say that the inference is improper. A portion of the road which is not meant for use is not ordinarily expected to be used. It may be used in exceptional cases provided the driver of a motor vehicle takes care to see that there is no possibility of causing any injury to any person. But this has not been done in the present case and therefore the inference of rashness and negligence is quite proper and the conviction cannot therefore be challenged in revision.

(2.) 2. It is next contended that where there is a conviction under section 279 I. P. Code and section 338 I. P. Code there cannot be a conviction under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The provision contained in section 71 I. P. Code and section 26 of the General Clauses Act must be borne in mind. Section 71 I. P. Code reads as follows:-

(3.) Section 26 of the General Clauses Act reads as follows:-