W. C. DUTT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application in revision by Mr. W. C. Dutt, a gentleman practising as a Barrister at Jubbulpore who has been convicted of offences under Sections 4(b) and 5, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to fines of Rs. 75 and Rs. 150 under each section respectively. His appeal against his conviction has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, and he now applies in revision.

(2.) IT is contended that there has been no-offence established by the evidence under-either section and also that the applicant was wrongly prevented from calling expert evidence from Bombay, and that, in the matter of the sentences, irrelevant considerations have been brought to bear in awarding a sentence heavier than would in normal circumstances have been given. Some officers of the Nerbudda Yale Hunt were loading their hounds, belonging to the Vale Hunt, in a motor lorry on the Jubbulpore-Allahabad Road, seven miles from Jubbulpore.. The lorry was facing the direction of Jubbulpore and was at its correct side of the road drawn up to the side. The applicant was driving his car in the direction of Allahabad and Lt. Daniell, on seeing the car approaching, made signals to it to slow down by raising and lowering his whip, a signal which is well understood by motor drivers and which the applicant does not deny that he did understand as a signal to slow down. According to the prosecution the car driven by the applicant did not slow down and as it passed the stationary lorry Lt. Daniell called out some remark to the driver of the car. The applicant considered it an insulting remark and also alleged that the car was struck by a whip, whereupon he pulled up his car, and got out.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the applicant does not deny that under Section 4 (b), Motor Vehicles Act, his client was bound to stop his car if the officers of the hunt had made a signal to him to do so and concedes that they were also entitled to ask him to slow down and that he was bound to accede to their request, but contends that the learned Sessions Judge is wrong in stating that the applicant should have stopped his car until Lt. Daniell gave him permission or until he could reasonably pass the motor lorry without danger to the hounds, and that by not stopping he has committed an offence under Section 4(b). This 13 certainly true and if no signal to stop had been given the applicant was under no obligation to stop, but the applicant was certainly under an obligation to slow down in consonance with the signal given and it was strongly contended on his behalf that there can be no criterion as to the extent to which the applicant ought to have slowed down in response to the signal, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of the speed at which he was driving and that he had slowed down sufficiently.