IN THE HIGH COURT 0!? KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADE' T
BETWEEN ;
R’. Vcnkobarac,
S/0. Late Ramarao,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as driver in V ‘
S€.’t1’.’iC1.1If¥.11i’C Department, _ –_ ;
R,la.B.M. Road, Vishwanatba Clolany,
HA”). Kata. . ‘V &;’;;,.:”PETITtONER
(By srg, K;:§;i.i_1s3;j¢i. i§éIv.)
AN13: A “” ” A 4
State by ” H
High Court. » M V’ _ ‘ RE3PONDENT
(Sgt Hoiméippa. HCGP)
This ,c;~1._R:> 1i§’i11¢ci U/$.39’? R/W 401 of (3r.P.C. praying
ta quaish’tI;cT<sxaje,2¢__13i;2;2.e8.2oo'7 passed by the H Add}. Dist. 35
Mysoxffs No.1-'£63 I 06 against petzitiancr and set aside
drgtler Dt.O§'«;«;1G.2006 passed in C.C.No.166/()6 on the file of
4: ;}_a»§p*c–;;;, Kfiysom.
V This fevision petition coming on for admission this day.
. the-_ Co’n”1T’t made the following;
-g_
9._E.D_E._B
K.R.’I’rafit: Poiice change sheeted the accused for the
cfiences punishable under Sections 279,, 33′?’ of IPC and
am R/W Sections 131, 3.35 R/W Section 177 of
Motor Vehiclss Act.
2. CW1 lodged a complaint on ‘3%,’1L$”p,,,g.;%’
alleging that, at about 1.30 pm. t=crh§;:1_’he fofi V
motorcycle along with his son aged a1’iE:::J¥é”J.*3 ifixiv-Néiayana
Shasui mad towards I)evaraja~.. was
ciriving the jeep bearing No.cK::;§_ ‘:46 rash and
negligent manner in u the vehicle
of the CW2. his fiffiaforcylcc fell down and
got he got * %% A T V
3. I13._§:f.§iip}9oI*t of prfitasecution case, PW}. ta PW6 have
béeg is the doctor. She has stated that, the
accu$é’3_ Based on the evidence, the trig}
cozivictctgt; Aaccuscd for the offence punishabie under
” x3_:_3.) km: 131 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act with fine
._ c5f Rs«.}’3.(}G,’.~..5 He was also sentenced with simple imprisonment
riaonth and we of Rs.1,0GO/~ for the ofibncc punishable
Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. However. the accused
S was acquitted for the oflencc punishable under Sections 2’79
and 337 of the IPC.
4. Leaxned counsel £01′ the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner is a government sexvant. If he is sentence
imprisonment it will effect his sexvice and also submits that;
oflence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of t1:.§*11éci l ‘
not proved by the prosecution. In such
Court was not justifieezi in convicting the VI:
punishable under Secfion 3(1) 1 ol’*tl1:e
Vehicles Act and also under _vthe.’liillilsin_lvlotor
Vehicles Act. V l V
5. The learned the
judgment submittegl that. the
accused had l
6. ‘I’hou§i1__t1ae U/s.279 IPC is alleged,
but same is -not .”‘It lshosvs that, the accused was not
tl1V’€:’–\{2.*elé;iéz’.1e’t’i1’1 a negligent manner. The ofience
33? is also not proved, it also shows
‘that, no suffered.
I ” “? .n Considexing the evidence and also the judgment of both
find that, in so far as the offence punishable under
H of the lndian Motor Vehicles Act is concerned. it
the proof of driving the vehicle under intoxication.
{lonsuming alcohol and intoxication are two difierent things.
Unless it is proved that the accused is intoxicated, it is dificult
f
few
to hold that the ofience has been prover} under Section 185 of
the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of the evidence available on
record, I am of the opinion that, the eviéence of the doctor is iict
suficient to prove the ofienee punishable under ‘4 3
the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Accordingly,” this revision is partlyeli e 7
is sentenced for the ofience punishable un(ier ‘Secfion R] V
181 of the Indian Motor Vehicies Act of’i3.’sa’,_VSt’}v(:)/ In so
far as the ofience pums’ habit: of tviieufndian
Motor Vehicles Act is concemed!
Sd/-
Iudgé
*APlw_ .’