Gurudeth s/o Madhavan Vs. State of Kerala
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1988.
(In SLP No. 2589A/1987)
(In SLP No. 2589A/1987)
Petitioner: Gurudeth s/o Madhavan
Respondent: State of Kerala
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1988.
(In SLP No. 2589A/1987)
(In SLP No. 2589A/1987)
Judges: A.P. SEN & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 18, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Sections 279 and 304A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Section 89(a) and (b) – Appellant had been acquitted by the Magistrate of the offence under the S.89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act – No appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal – High Court had no jurisdiction while acquitting the appellant of the offence under sections 304A and 279 of the Penal Code in directing that his conviction and sentence under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be maintained.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. We are satisfied that the High Court had no jurisdiction while acquitting the appellant of the offences under ss.304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in directing that his conviction and sentence under s.89 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 shall be maintained. We fail to appreciate the legality and propriety of such a direction. The High Court completely overlooked that there was an order of acquittal rendered by the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-II Trivandrum by his judgment dated December 7, 1983 holding that the offence under s.89(a) and (b) was not made out against the appellant. There was no appeal against acquittal preferred by the State Government. In view of this, the High Court had no jurisdiction and power to direct the conviction of the appellant under s.89(a) and (b) of the Act.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judugment of the High Court insofar as it directs that the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under s.89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are set aside.
4. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. We are satisfied that the High Court had no jurisdiction while acquitting the appellant of the offences under ss.304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in directing that his conviction and sentence under s.89 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 shall be maintained. We fail to appreciate the legality and propriety of such a direction. The High Court completely overlooked that there was an order of acquittal rendered by the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-II Trivandrum by his judgment dated December 7, 1983 holding that the offence under s.89(a) and (b) was not made out against the appellant. There was no appeal against acquittal preferred by the State Government. In view of this, the High Court had no jurisdiction and power to direct the conviction of the appellant under s.89(a) and (b) of the Act.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judugment of the High Court insofar as it directs that the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under s.89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are set aside.
4. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
