LAWS(PAT)-1966-10-21

WAEEZUL KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 06, 1966
WAEEZUL KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the two Courts below under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: At about 10-30 a.m. on the 3rd March, 1963, the petitioner was driving a truck No. BRN 5851 on Patna Ranchi Road. He was going from south to north near village Kharant when a bus bearing No. BRA 1759 was com ing from the opposite direction on the north. There was a collision between the truck and the bus as a result of which both the vehicles got damaged in their front parts. At the rele vant time, there were three bullock-carts also coming from south to north and one of the bullock carts as a result of the collision between the bus and the truck got thrown into a ditch nearby The allegation is that peti tioner was driving his truck rashly and negli gently at a high speed whereas the but was coming in slow speed.

(3.) Learned Counsel, Mr. Saptami Jha,appearing for the petitioner, has raised a point that for exactly the same facts, the petitioner was tried by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nawadah under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was acquitted by the judgment, dated the 13th April, 1964. The contention is that the ingredients of Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act are substantially similar to the ingredients of Section 279 of the Penal Code and. therefore, it is urged that for the same offence arising out of exactly the same facts, the petitioner could not be tried twice. This contention was raised also before the learned Court of Appeal below and that Court, relying on a Bench decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Mangal Singh, AIR 1953 Pat 56, has observed that the trial of the petitioner under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act was no bar to his subsequent trial under Section 279 of the Penal Code, since, in its obvious view, the ingredients of the two offences are different though the learned Court has not said so in so many words.