Reckless driving under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 71 of the Madras City Police Act requires proof of a higher degree of culpability than negligence, namely, rashness, which is acting with the consciousness that dangerous consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not.

ORDER : This Revision is sought to be filed against the conviction and sentence by the learned Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in M. V. Case No. 901 of 1957.

2. The accused Mr. J. C. May who was driving his car MSZ. 6150 on 14-7-1957 at about 16-10 hours collided against the car MSZ 5070 coming on his right at the intersection of South Beach Road and Edward Elliots Road, Madras, which is near the Inspector-General of Polices Office.

3. The case for the prosecution as set out by P.W. 2 the driver of MSZ 5070 is : He was driving his car (Hudson) from Edward Elliots Road to St. Thomas Road. At the junction of the road there was the caution board prominently calling upon vehicles to stop, listen and proceed. P.W. 2 accordingly stopped on the Edward Elliots Road at the turning point within about 10 feet of the fountain and looked up on either side of the main road. MSZ. 6150 was coming at a distance of about 150 yards on P.W. 2s left. As both sides were thus clear for him, P.W. 2 turned to his right and proceeded on the South Beach Road at a moderate speed. Then he heard a collision sound in his rear.

He stopped his car, got down and saw MSZ. 6150 had hit his car and had gone and stopped near the I. G. office gate. P.W. 2s right rear mudguard, bumper, dicky and rear lights had been damaged. In other words, P.W. 2s case is that by reason of the accused driving at a speed and in a manner dangerous to the public, had brought about The collision and thereby the accused is guilty of driving recklessly or dangerously within the meaning of S. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939 arid S. 71 of the Madras City Police Act III of 1888, which penalises any one who drives any vehicle in a rash or negligent manner in any public place.

4. The case for the accused was that finding that P.W. 2 had stopped his vehicle suddenly and unexpectedly, he (accused) applied his brakes but could not avoid colliding and that therefore this is nothing more than an inevitable accident and an error of judgment not punishable under S. 116 of the M. V. Act or S. 71 of the Madras City Police Act.

5. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the version of P.W. 2 was acceptable and convicted the accused as charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 40. Hence this Revision.

6. Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act corresponds to Sec. 5 of Act VIII of 1914 which ran as follows :

"Whoever drives a motor vehicle in a public place recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, in the place ........."

It may be noted that words "in a public place recklessly or negligently or" have been omitted in the new Act. The old section had not however specified the definition of reckless and negligent driving and it was left to the case-law on the subject to define their limits.

7. Culpable driving of a motor vehicle giving rise to penalties on the criminal side and damages on the civil side may be classified as negligent driving, rash driving and guilty errors of judgment. Of these three classes, the first two constitute the component elements of reckless or dangerous driving punishable under Sec. 116 of the M. V. Act. Section 71 of the City Police Act postulates the rash or negligent driving in any public place as the requisites for an offence to be committed under that section. Errors of judgment which fell within that clause give rise to civil liability but are not punishable criminally. Gours Penal Law 5th edition p. 1047 quoted with approval in Cheriyan v. Sirkar Prosecutor, AIR 1950 Trav-Co. 14; R. v. Finney (1874) 12 Cox C. C. 625; Jumman v. Emperor AIR 1944 Nag 285; Emperor v. Abdul Qayyum, AIR 1941 Lah 113; Robson v. Emperor AIR 1934 Rang 194; Andrew v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) 2 All E. R. 552