RAGHO PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Secs.279 and 338, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 on each of the charges or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The fine, if realized, to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The facts were that on the night of 1 January 1938 he was driving a motor car in a reckless manner along a road in this town and drove into the hackney carriage in charge of the complainant with the result that the complainant and his passengers were hurt. The only question is whether in these circumstances he should have been sentenced under both Secs.279 and 338.

(2.) The former Section makes rash driving or riding on a public road punish, able if such rash driving or riding endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Where the rash or negligent driving actually results in grievous hurt being caused to any person, an offence under Section 338 is committed. In Mt. Champa Pasin V/s. Emperor A.I.R (1928) . Pat. 326 a Division Bench of jthis Court held that the imposition of separate sentences was not justified where the lacts constituting two different offences form part of the same transaction against the same accused.

(3.) That observation appears to apply to the facts of this case and I would therefore set aside the sentence under Section 279, I.P.C. The conviction and sentence under Section 338 will remain.