1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

2. Accused in Crime No.293 of 2012 of Chottanikkara Police Station registered under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short, "the PDPP Act") seeks quashment of the charge under Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act in Annexure-A4 final report.

3. Heard Shri P.N. Sukumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Justin Jacob, learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The allegations, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner on 15.04.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. drove a mini lorry through Kochi-Madhura National High Way in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the rash driving, the vehicle went off the road and hit on an electric post, made of teak wood and carrying 11 KV electric line, and thereby caused damage to a tune of ?35,000/-to the Kerala State Electricity Board. Annexure-A1 is the first information report. After investigation, Police filed Annexure-A4 final report. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry took cognizance of the case and it is pending in C.C.No.876 of 2013.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the two offences charged against the petitioner are incongruous to one another as the genesis of the offences are entirely different. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, essence of the offence under Section 279 IPC is rash or negligent driving/riding of a vehicle on a public way. Whereas the core of the offence under Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act is committing mischief and thereby causing damage to public property. Learned counsel further contended that in the case of Section 279 IPC, no intention or knowledge is required to attract the offence nor they are attributable to an accused involved in the offence. What is required therein is primarily an allegation that the accused drove or rode a vehicle rashly or negligently through a public way so as to endanger human life, etc. But, in the case of a person roped in an offence under Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act, all the ingredients of mischief as defined in Section 425 IPC will have to be alleged and proved. Per contra, learned Prosecutor contended that both the penal Sections are not mutually exclusive and there is nothing wrong in charging the petitioner with both the offences.

6. Before delving into the legal aspects, it is apposite to take note of the relevant provisions of law involved in this case.

7. Section 279 IPC reads as follows:

"Rash driving or riding on a public way-Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

8. Section 3 of the PDPP Act is to the following effect:

"Mischief causing damage to public property-

(1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of public property other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.

(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being-

(a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;

(b) any oil installations;

(c) any sewage works;

(d) any mine or factory;

(e) any means of public transportation or of telecommunications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:

Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imp