SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22458

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
AISHA.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4468 2023



Advocates:
ISTINAF ABDULLAH

A guardian's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is contingent on the commission of an offense by a juvenile, necessitating proof of both the offense and the juvenile's age.

Headnote:

Abuse - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 199A, 336 of IPC - The court found that the guardian could only be prosecuted if a juvenile had committed an offense; absent evidence of a juvenile's offense or age, the accusations were deemed invalid.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is accused in a case arising from allegations that a minor rode a motorcycle in a negligent manner, endangering public safety. The prosecution invoked various sections of the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner, claiming guardian liability.

Issues: Whether the guardian can be charged under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act without evidence of the juvenile committing an offense or proving their age.

Ratio Decidendi: A guardian can only be prosecuted if a juvenile has committed an offense under the Motor Vehicles Act; without such proof, the charges lack merit.

Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.No.1138/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.380/2023 of Valanchery Police Station registered interaliaunder Section 336 of IPC , 5 r/w Section 180, 199A(1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 05.04.2023, the petitioner permitted a minor to ride a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-55-X-8517. The minor is alleged to have ridden the bike in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the life and personal safety of the general public. It is also alleged that as the offence has been committed by a juvenile, the petitioner in her capacity as the guardian, is liable to be proceeded against under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

3. Sri.Istinaf Abdullah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the initiation of prosecution proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process. According to the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider identical issues in Crl. M.C.No.7479 of 2022 and, after evaluating the entire facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that none of the offenses would be made out.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced.

6. I find that identical issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. M.C.No.7479 of 2022 . The observations and findings in paragraphs Nos.4 to 7 of the judgment are extracted below:

“4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the offences alleged against him would be attracted against him. The crux of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act requires that an offence must have been committed by a Juvenile and only thereupon the charge under can be imposed upon the guardian of such juvenile. It is pointed out that, in this case, no such offences are charged against the juvenile and in the absence of such prosecution, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the same.

5. After considering the relevant aspects, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:

“199-A. Offences by juveniles.--(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall render such guardian or owner liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the Court shall presume that the use of the motor vehicle by the juvenile was with the consent of the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle, as the case may be.

(2) In addition to the penalty under sub-section (1), such guardian or owner shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall not apply to such guardian or owner if the juvenile committing the offence had been granted a learner's licence under section 8 or a driving licence and was operating a motor vehicle which such juvenile was licensed to operate.

(4) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, the registration of the motor vehicle used in the commission of the offence shall be cancelled for a period of twelve months.

(5) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, then, notwithstandin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top