Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Penal Code, 1860 – Conflict between – The High Court held that road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the prosecution of cases of road traffic or motor vehicle offences under the provisions of the Penal Code is without sanction of law – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – The position of law is well-settled – The Supreme 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 – The offences prescribed under the IPC are independent of the offences prescribed under the M.V. Act – The legislative intent of the M.V. Act, and in particular Chapter XIII of the M.V. 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 – There is no provision under the M.V. Act which separately deals with offences causing death, or grievous hurt, or hurt by a motor vehicle in cases of motor vehicle accidents – Offences under Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act, cannot abrogate the applicability of the provisions u/s. 297, 304, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC – There is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the M.V. Act – Both statutes operate in entirely different spheres – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 26.
Doctrines/Principles – The principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment – In relation to road traffic offences – discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In view of this Court there is no conflict between the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 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 ingredients of offences under the both statutes, are different, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law, has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and M.V. Act. [Para 6] [787-D]
2. It is pertinent to mention that there is no provision under the M.V. Act which separately deals with offences causing death, or grievous hurt, or hurt by a motor vehicle in cases of motor vehicle accidents. Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act is silent about the act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, or hurt, or grievous hurt, to persons nor does it prescribe any separate punishment for the same; whereas Sections 279, 304 Part II, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC have been specifically framed to deal with such offences. [Para 7] [787-E-F]
3. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides, “Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.” It is well settled that an act or an omission can constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, be an offence under any other law. The finding of the High Court that the prosecution of offenders under two statutes i.e. the M.V. Act and the IPC, is unsustainable and contrary to law, is therefore, set aside. [Paras 8] [787-G; 788-A]
4. 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. The offences do not overlap, and therefore, the maxim of “generalia specialibus nonderogant” is inapplicable, and could not have been invoked. The offences prescribed under the IPC are independent of the offences prescribed under the M.V. Act. It cannot be said that prosecution of road traffic/motor vehicle offenders under the IPC would offend Section 5 of the IPC, as held by the High Court, in so far as punishment for offences under the M.V. Act is concerned. [Para 9] [790-C-D]
5. The principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. The maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under Chapter XIII of the M.V. Act, is up to only six months; whereas the maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under the IPC in relation to road traffic offences can go upto 10 years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The sentence imposed by the courts should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and should have a deterring effect on wrong-doers. The punishment of offenders of motor vehicle accidents under the IPC is stricter and proportionate to the offence committed, as compared with the M.V. Act. [Para 12] [791-A-C]
7. This Court thus holds that a prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the IPC and the MV Act, since both the statutes operate with full vigour, in their own independent spheres. Even assuming that some of the provisions of the MV Act and IPC are overlapping, it cannot be said that the offences under both the statutes are incompatible. [Para 13] [791-C-D]
T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Rangachari [1969] 3 SCR 65 ; State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan AIR 2018 SC
5348 ; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC
82 : [2000] 3 SCR 1000 ; Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 734 : [2012] 8 SCR 189 – relied on.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 713 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 677 ; Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385 : [2004] SCR
213 ; Vimla Devi and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 186 ; M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty and Ors. (1987)
4 SCC 284 : [1987] 3 SCR 1149 ; Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (2008) 1 SCC 791 : [2007] 11 SCR 987; Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC
474 ; [2007] 1 SCR 774 ; Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 : [2012] 1 SCR 145 ; N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. v. M. Karwnai Ammal & Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 457 : [1980] 3 SCR 101 ; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 : [2013] 4 SCR 104 ; State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738 : [2002]
2 SCR 692 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : [2008] 1 SCR 1061 ; Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 13 SCC 446 : [2007] 2 SCR 939 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.