ARUMUGHAM PILLAI Vs. GNANASOUNDARA PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. R. C. No. 762 of 1960: This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, who dismissed an appeal of the petitioner from his convictions under Ss. 337 and 338, I. P. C. as well and S. 3 and s. 89 read with S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The District Magistrate altered the sentence of imprisonment for three months under S. 338 into a fine of Rs. 500 and the rigorous imprisonment for six weeks under S. 337 into a fine of Rs. 20. He confirmed the fine of Rs, 20 on each count under the said sections of the Motor vehicles Act. The court below further directed that a sum of Rs. 400 out of the fine of Rs. 500 should be paid over as compensation under S. 545, Cr. P. C. to P. W. 14, the father of the girls who were injured.

(2.) THE fact as found by the courts below are no longer in dispute. in fact, Sri mohan Kumaramangalam, appearing for the petitioner, intimated that he accepted the facts as found and addressed arguments on the basis of proved facts. The car mdr 2066 belonged to the petitioner Gnanasoundara Pandian. He had no driving licence but wanted to learn driving. At 6-30 a. m. on August 4, 1959, with one kasi, examined as P. W. 4, in the case, who was a licensed driver, seated by his side on the left in front scat, The petitioner took out the car, himself at the steering. He drove the car into Karaikudi town and on the way to a Battery company at Singararapillai Street, the car was proceeding at Maharnonbu agraharam and just then the car went off the platform opposite to the Indian bank. P. W. 4 asked the petitioner to apply the brakes. But the petitioner in stead pressed on the accelerator with the result the car MDR 2066 dashed against a taxi mdu 4178 stationed on the right side of the street squeezing in between two girls rajalakshmi and her sister Usha. Both the girls sustained grievous injuries, Muthu, who was sitting in the taxi, was bit on hit on forehead. It is clear from the facts that the, accident occurred because the petitioner, when the cat, Went lover the platform instead of applying the brakes, apparently, due to inexperience and mistake, pressed down the accelerator, thus increasing the speed of the car as a result of which, he dashed against the taxi squeezing the two unfortunate girls in between.

(3.) ON those facts, Sri Mohan Kumaramangalam, lam contended that the petitioner could not be held guilty of rash and negligent act punishable under Ss. 337 and 338, I. P. C. According to him, it was not proved that. the car MDR 2066 at the time or just before the accident was driven at an excessive speed and when that car swerved to the right and over the platform, the petitioner immediately did hi. best to apply the brakes and stop the car but instead, on account of inexperience and by what was obviously a mistake, actually pressed the accelerator producing the opposite effect not intended. In such circumstances, argued the learned counsel, the petitioner acted neither rashly nor negligently. The point is one of importance and calls for a careful consideration.