NATARAJAN - (1.) THE light hearted and casual manner of disposal of the case against the respondent in C.C. No. 442 of 1980 on the file of his court by the Additional Munsif-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Madhugiri and the refusal of the High Court of Karnataka to enhance the sentence of the respondent in exercise of its powers under S. 377, Criminal P.C. in Criminal Appeal No. 451/81 preferred by the State has compelled the State of Karnataka to approach this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution to file this Appeal by Special Leave.
(2.) THE respondent has not entered appearance in spite of the Notices issued to him. The respondent was charged under Ss. 279. 337 and 304-A. Penal Code and Ss. S9(a) and 89(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act for having driven a Express bus bearing Registration No. MYT 3066 in a rash and negligent manner at about 8.30 P.M. on 30-4-80 on the Madhugiri Hosakere Road and hitting a bullock cart as a result of which one of the persons travelling in the cart Rangappa alias Veeramallapa sustained fatal injuries and another passenger sustained simple injuries. After the accident the respondent failed to secure medical assistance to the injured persons and also failed to report the accident to the police authorities. The respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges and was accordingly convicted. However, in awarding sentences to the respondent for the several convictions, the Magistrate imposed trivial amounts of fines which had the effect of making the trial and the convictions a mere farce. The sentences awarded are as follows :- JUDGEMENT_538_1_1987Html1.htm
(3.) PERTURBED and shocked by the callous manner in which the Magistrate had dealt with the case, the State preferred an appeal tinder S. 377, Cr. P.C. to the High Court of Karnataka for enhancement of sentence. The High Court, we regret to note, has declined to interfere with the sentence on grounds which has no basis or relevance. The High Court was alive to the trivial nature of the sentences awarded by the Magistrate and has observed : "The sentence imposed appears to be a lenient one." Nevertheless, the High Court has declined to exercise its powers under S. 377, Cr. P.C. and the strange reasons given by it are as follows :- "The judgment of conviction and sentence has been delivered on 30/01/1981. We are today at the fag-end of January, 1983. The award has been hanging over the head of the accused for a very long time. Which should have made him undergo a lot of mental agony and torture. It is no doubt true that one death has taken place and injuries have been caused to one person. The sentence imposed appears to be a lenient one. Therefore, considering the fact the appeal is pending for a long time and it must have caused the accused a lot of mental anxiety, we think that the appeal should be dismissed with an observation that in such serious cases the court is expected to take a serious view of the matter and not to be lenient in such matters. With this observation the appeal is dismissed." The utter disregard shown by the Magistrate to the nature of the offences, particularly the one under S. 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and the sentences provided for them under the Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, by imposing what may be termed as 'flea-bite' sentences on the respondent, should have spurred the High Court to not only pass appropriate strictures against the Magistrate but also to set right matters by enhancing the sentence at least for the conviction under S. 304-A, Indian Penal Code to a conscionable level in exercise of its powers under S. 377, Indian Penal Code;