1936 (1) TMI 24 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court overturns conviction, orders fine refund. Specific statutory provisions crucial for accurate liability determination.

The High Court set aside the petitioner's conviction and ordered the refund of the fine. It held that the offense of obstructing traffic by parking near ... - Issues:Violation of Rule 12 under Section 22(6), Bombay City Police Act - Conviction and fine imposed on the petitioner for causing obstruction to traffic by occupying a portion of a public street.Analysis:The petitioner, a chauffeur, was convicted and fined &8377; 5 for violating Rule 12 framed under Section 22(6) of the Bombay City Police Act, which prohibits causing obstruction to traffic or inconvenience to the public by occupying any portion of a street. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had parked his car near the kerb on a public street, causing traffic obstruction between Princess Street and Dhobi Talao. The trial court found the petitioner guilty based on evidence that he had indeed caused obstruction. However, the High Court opined that Rule 12 was not applicable in this case. Section 22(c) empowers the Commissioner of Police to make rules regarding vehicles remaining standing in streets, and Rule 1 under this section specifically prohibits halting or keeping a vehicle standing in a way that causes danger, obstruction, or inconvenience to the public.The offense in question did not involve driving the car to obstruct traffic but rather keeping it parked near the kerb, obstructing traffic. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the case fell under the specific provisions of Section 22(c) and Rule 1, which address vehicles remaining standing in streets. In contrast, Rule 12 under Section 22(b) is more general and pertains to occupying a portion of a street causing obstruction or inconvenience. Notably, Rule 1 requires the obstruction to be willful, a condition not present in Rule 12. The principle of statutory interpretation dictates that specific provisions prevail over general ones when applicable. As the petitioner's case fell under the specific provisions of Rule 1 under Section 22(c), the High Court deemed the conviction under Rule 12 incorrect in law.Consequently, the High Court allowed the petitioner's plea, set aside the conviction, and ordered the refund of the fine if already paid. The judgment highlights the importance of correctly applying specific statutory provisions to determine liability and underscores the need for precision in legal interpretation to ensure justice is served.