TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Road traffic offences can be prosecuted under Motor Vehicles Act & Indian Penal Code.</h1> <h3>The State Of Arunachal Pradesh, The State Of Tripura Versus Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas And Anr.</h3> The State Of Arunachal Pradesh, The State Of Tripura Versus Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas And Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether road traffic offences should be dealt with exclusively under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) or can also be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Exclusivity of the M.V. Act for Road Traffic OffencesHigh Court's Findings:- The Gauhati High Court held that road traffic offences should be prosecuted solely under the M.V. Act and not under the IPC. The High Court reasoned that the M.V. Act is a special statute specifically enacted to deal with motor vehicle offences, and its provisions should prevail over the general provisions of the IPC. The Court asserted that the IPC does not expressly cover road traffic offences, and hence, prosecution under the IPC would be unsustainable in law. The High Court also directed the states to issue instructions to prosecute offenders only under the M.V. Act, with the exception of cases involving culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.Supreme Court's Findings:- The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's findings and held that there is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the M.V. Act. Both statutes operate in different spheres and provide for distinct offences and penalties. The Court emphasized that the principle of 'generalia specialibus non derogant' (special law prevails over general law) does not apply in this context because the offences under the IPC and the M.V. Act are independent and distinct from each other.- The Supreme Court noted that the M.V. Act primarily deals with regulatory offences and provides a summary procedure for disposal of cases, whereas the IPC is punitive and deterrent in nature, dealing with more severe offences such as causing death or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving. The Court pointed out that the M.V. Act does not provide for specific offences causing death or grievous hurt, which are covered under Sections 279, 304 Part II, 304A, 337, and 338 of the IPC.- The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, allows for prosecution under both the IPC and the M.V. Act, provided that the offender is not punished twice for the same offence. The Court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation, including T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Rangachari and State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan, which held that there is no bar to trial or conviction under two different enactments.- The Supreme Court also emphasized the need for strict punishment for offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents, given the increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities in India. The Court stressed that the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment must be maintained, and the punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.Conclusion:- The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court to prosecute offenders in motor vehicle accidents only under the M.V. Act. The Court held that prosecution is maintainable under both the IPC and the M.V. Act, and both statutes operate with full vigor in their respective spheres. The interim order passed on 26.04.2010 was made absolute, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 