RAM RUP Vs. CROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUR learned brother Harnam Singh J. has referred this case to a larger Bench for a further consideration of the point of law involved in it. The facts found by our learned brother are as follows.

(2.) RAM Rup was the driver of motor lorry No. PBC-413 belonging to the Rohtak Bus Company. On 16-2-1948, the lorry driven by Earn Rup carrying some 25 or 26 passengers arrived at mahem from Hansi side. Hari Parkash, son of one of the Directors of the Rohtak Bus Co. took his seat in the lorry by the side of the driver. After the lorry started from Mahem, Ram Rup driver gave the wheel of the bus to Hari Parkash who began to drive it. As Hari Parkash was a minor and not well trained in driving, Earn Lal P. W. 7 who was one of the passengers sitting in the lorry objected to its being driven by Hari Parkash. No heed was paid to his objection. Hari parkash stopped driving for a while but he again took up the wheel and went on driving. When the bus passed through village Bahu Akbarpur, Hari Parkash was unable to control the lorry. At that (time?) the lorry was going at a high speed and shifted to the kacha portion of the road. Hari parkash made an attempt to stop the lorry by suddenly applying the brakes but the lorry was overturned and four passengers were injured. The glass panes of the lorry were also broken and the oil and petrol in the engine was spilled on the ground.

(3.) RAM Rup stated that he was driving the lorry himself and wanted to take all the blame on him to exonerate the boy Hari Parkash, who is only 13 years of age, as he was the son of one of the directors of the Rohtak Bus Company. This, however, was not accepted by the Courts below nor by our learned brother. The finding is that Ram Rup was in charge of the lorry and at the time the accident took place, was with the boy who was then driving the lorry. The point of law involved is that if the boy Hari Parkash was guilty of offences under Ss. 338 and 279, Penal Code, and was convicted of these offences, can Ram Rup be found guilty of abetment of these offences, the argument being that there cannot be abetment of negligence? In support of the argument is quoted Salmond who has stated at p. 393 of his work on Jurisprudence, 10th (1947) Edn. as follows: