JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal, filed by the appellant from the jail against the order of conviction and sentences, passed against him in a Summary Case No. 1151 of 1966 of the Court of the City Magistrate, 4th Court, Ahmedabad. He has been convicted of offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer four months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months' further rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. This order of conviction and sentences has been passed by the learned City Magistrate, 4th Court, Ahmedabad, Mr. B. J. Shelat.

Paras 2-7. * * * *

8. It has been contended by the learned Advocate, Mr. Abhichandani that both these offences are similar and they are of a similar nature and hence, no separate conviction could be recorded tor both the offences. In support of his argument, he relied upon the case of Ragho Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Pat 388. It has been observed therein as under :-

"Section 279 makes rash driving or riding on a public road punishable if such rash driving or riding endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. Where the rash or negligent driving actually results in grievous hurt being caused to any person, an offence under section 338 is committed and accused can be convicted under section 338 but not both under sections 279 and 338."

In my opinion, with great respect to Agarwala J., the reasoning on which that judgment is based, is not quite sound. The offence under Section 279 is an offence against the public safety. That is the object of that Section. The object of Section 337 or Section 338 is to punish a person who commits such an act and his act causes hurt or grievous hurt to an individual person.

9. In the case of State v. Gulam Meer, AIR 1956 Madh Bha 141, a Full Bench of Madhya Bharat High Court has observed as under :-

"An offence under Section 279 is distinct from an offence under Sec. 337 or Section 338 and, therefore, a person convicted of an offence under Section 337 or Section 338 can also be convicted for an offence under section 279. If, however, the two offences are committed in the same transaction, Section 71 will govern the assessment of punishment."

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of State v. Kamalkar Prabhakar Juvekar, 61 Bom LR 1674 : (AIR 1960 Bom 269) has also observed as under :-

"Where the accused is prosecuted for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the compounding of the offences under Section 337 of the Code will not prevent the prosecution from being continued under Section 279 of the Code."

At page 1675 (of Bom LR) : (at p. 270 of AIR), the relevant observations made are as under :-

"The offences under Sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, are however, offences of different nature and the

conduct referred to therein is penalised with different objects. An act, which is rash or negligent or is likely to

endanger human life, may be the result of driving any vehicle or riding on a public way. Undoubtedly, the two sections overlap, but that does not, in our judgment, make those offences of the same character. The offence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, is non-compoundable, and the compounding of the offence under Sec. 337, Indian Penal Code, will not prevent the prosecution from being continued under Section 279, Indian Penal Code.....

Mr. Nadkarni, for the accused, contended that whenever on account of rash or negligent driving simple hurt is caused to any other person, a charge under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, may be made, and if grievous hurt is caused

Click Here to Read the rest of this document