PRABHUDAYAL Vs. SURYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sikar dated 24. 8. 1959. It came up for hearing before Hon'ble the Chief Justice but as a point of law was involved in it, it has been referred to a Division Bench.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. THE accused Surya Narain is alleged to have driven motor bus No. R. J. V. 331 and while doing so, he dashed the bus against Onkarlal who was thrown aside and a baby two years old whom he was carrying in his lap was thrown in front of the vehicle and consequently was over-run and died. THE police challaned Surya Narain under sec. 304-A read with sec. 279 Indian Penal Code. As Surya Narain had no license for driving a bus, he was also challaned separately under sec. 3 read with sec. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. THE complainant Prabhudayal also lodged a complaint under sec. 304-A read with sec. 279 Indian Penal Code. THE Magistrate consolidated the two cases instituted on the complaint together with the challan and he tried the accused for both the cases jointly. THE case under sec. 304-A and sec. 279 Indian Penal Code took some time and the other case under the Moor Vehicles Act concluded on the 19th of May, 1958. THE Magistrate held that it was not proved that the accused Surya Narain. was driving the bus R. J. V. 331 at the time of the accident and he, therefore, acquitted him of an offence under sec. 3 read with sec. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. THEreupon the accused contended in the two cases that were still pending in the Court of the Magistrate that the said finding in the case under the Motor Vehicles Act was binding on the prosecution, and that the cases under sec. 304-A and sec. 279 Indian Penal Code could not proceed thereafter against the accused. THE Magistrate accepted the contention of the accused following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pritam Singh and another Vs. THE State of Punjab (1), dropped those proceedings and acquitted Surya Narain on the 31st of March, 1959. THE complainant then made an application in the Court of the Magistrate that the proceedings under sec, 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code on his complaint should continue even though the case of the State failed in view of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. THE Magistrate dismissed that application on the 9th of May, 1959. THE complainant then went in revision to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar which has resulted in this reference. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the decision of the Supreme Court in Pritam Singh's case (1) is applicable to the parties to the earlier case only and it is not applicable to the case of the complainant who was not a party to the previous decision. THE learned Judge has recommended that the proceedings under sec. 304-A read with sec. 279 Indian Penal Code should be allowed to continue on the complaint of Prabhudayal. THE learned Judge has also pointed out that the Magistrate was wrong in consolidating the two cases and in holding a single trial. He has considered this circumstance to be one of the reasons for the reference.