Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Introduction
The Supreme Court in a recent judgement gave clarity regarding the ambit and scope of provsions the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Indian Penal Code 1860 , particularlty relating to the primacy of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 over the Indian Penal Code 1860 in a judgement by the Gauhati High Court.
Gauhati High Court Judgement
Sections 183 and 184 of the M.V. Act, which relate to driving of motor vehicles at excessive speeds and dangerously, and other offences under Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act are compoundable before the Police, or in court, and that no further proceeding shall be taken against the accused after he has pleaded guilty.
The IPC and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) are placed in Entry No. 1 and 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The 2M.V. Act,1988 falls under Entry No. 35 of the Concurrent List. Hence, the status of the M.V. Act is at par with the IPC and Cr.P.C, and it cannot be presumed that M.V. Act is either a subordinate legislation, or inferior to the IPC and Cr.P.C in status.
The prosecution of offenders under the provisions of the IPC is violative of settled principles of law and contrary to the legislative intent of the M.V. Act.
Core Issue
Whether the Gauhati High Court was justified in issuing directions that road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“M.V. Act”), and in holding that in cases of road traffic or motor vehicle offences, prosecution under the provisions of Indian Penal Code,1860 (“IPC”) is without sanction of law, and recourse to the provisions of the IPC would be unsustainable in law?
Supreme Court Judgement
The Supreme Court held that both the provisons of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Indian Penal Code 1860 exist independently in their own jurisdiction and that there is no question of each provision over ruling the other after a careful and detailed perusal of both the laws.
In our view there is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the MV Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other. The penal consequences provided under both the statutes are also independent and distinct from each other.
The legislative intent of the MV Act, and in particular Chapter XIII of the MV Act, was not to override or supersede the provisions of the IPC in so far as convictions of offenders in motor vehicle accidents are concerned. Offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act, cannot abrogate the applicability of the provisions under Sections 297, 304, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC.
This Court has consistently held that the M.V. Act,1988 is a complete code in itself in so far as motor vehicles are concerned. However, there is no bar under the M.V. Act or otherwise, to try and prosecute offences under the IPC for an offence relating to motor vehicle accidents. On this ground as well, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside
86540
103860
630
114
59824