The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution of road traffic offenders under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is the rule, and prosecution under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code is violative of settled principles of law and contrary to legislative intent, with an exception for unusual and exceptional road accidents.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. Motor Vehicles Law and Rules made thereunder provides stringent and elaborate procedure for granting driving licenses. If one seeks a licence to drive transport or public service vehicle the scrutiny and tests are more rigorous. There are more than enough penal provisions to stem errant and reckless driving cancellation of driving licence, punitive sentences for driving vehicles at excessive speed, dangerously, in alcoholic condition at all causing loss and damage to property and human lives. Despite these precautionary and punitive provisions in the law graph of traffic offence is not showing any sign of improvement. As per the statistics provided in Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India Reports, published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Govt. of India, there were 2,72,100 road accidents in the year 1996 claiming 69,800 precious human lives. Within a decade, i.e. in the year 2006 the number of road accidents shot-up to 3,94,432 and the casualty figure to 1,05,725 and bodily injuries to 4,52,900 persons. In the year 2007, number of road accidents and deaths in such accidents increased to 4,18,657 and 1,14,590 respectively. Despite the fact that deaths in road traffic accidents account for 33.6% of total accidental deaths both the drivers as well as the investigating agencies are totally oblivious to this situation. As far as drivers are concerned the number of accidents prove their defiant attitude to the traffic Rules. At the same time, callous, slipshod and unscientific investigation of traffic offences by Police, leading to high rate of acquittal or awarding inadequate punishment to offending drivers are also contributing factors for the rising rate of vehicular accidents.

2. Amidst this scenario, I am precisely called upon to examine and answer the following questions of law in this revision application.

(i) Whether resort to the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for prosecuting and convicting persons for committing offences of road traffic accidents is legal and justified?

(ii) Whether the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are more suitable and appropriate for road traffic offences than the provisions of Indian Penal Code?

3. Heard Sri. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who advanced lucid, eloquent and erudite submissions to explain the legal position, more particularly with regard to faulty investigation and unscientific sentencing policy for road traffic offences. The learned Counsel dwelt upon certain unexplored areas in the trial system of traffic offences. On the other hand, Sri. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State attempted to defend the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity IPC).

4. This revision petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 10-6-2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Jude, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 57(4) of 2001 whereby the appellate Court has upheld the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in G. R. case No. 913 of 1997 convicting the petitioner Under Section 279/304A/337 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo varied period of prison terms, highest being concurrent sentence for one year rigorous imprisonment.

5. Since the legality of the conviction and also the quantum of sentence have been assailed it is necessary to give resume of the facts, which are as below:

5.1. The petitioner was the owner-cum-driver of a jeep, bearing Regn. No. TR-01-3464. On 3-11-1997 at about 8 O'clock in the morning he was ferrying passengers driving his own jeep. The Jeep met with head on collision with an Army vehicle coming from the opposite direction and the said accident took place on a public road. As a result of the accident as many as 3 passengers succumbed to the injuries and all the remaining passengers of the Jeep, including the driver, also sustained injuries.

5.2. The FIR was lodged by one of the passengers (PW1). The same was register