Kerala High Court
Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8999 OF 2023
CRIME NO.275/2023 OF KADAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 1124/2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR
PETITIONER/S:
NARAYANAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. CHAMI, KARANAKKOTTIL HOUSE, CHEENICHODE,
EDAYUR NORTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676554
BY ADV MUHAMMED AMEEN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KADAMPUZHA POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679571
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SREEJA.V, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
=============================================================
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2023
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in ST No.1124 of 2023 on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur, arising from Crime
No.275 of 2023 of Kadampuzha Police Station, Malappuram. The
above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under
Section 336 IPC and under Section 5, 180, 199A(1) and 199A(2) of
the Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 12.04.2023 the petitioner
permitted a minor boy, who is immature and not having valid driving
licence to ride a scooter bearing reg. No.KL-52/S-7178 and thereby
committed the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. After hearing both sides, I think Annexure A2 final report
will not stand in the light of the dictum laid down in
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
Crl.M.C.No.7479/2022 which is followed in Crl.M.C.No.4779/2023.
It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment in
Crl.M.C.No.7479/2022:
"4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that none of the offences alleged against
him would be attracted against him. The crux of the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act requires that an
offence must have been committed by a Juvenile and only
thereupon the charge under Section 199A can be imposed
upon the guardian of such juvenile. It is pointed out that,
in this case, no such offences are charged against the
juvenile and in the absence of such prosecution, the
proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would
oppose the same.
5. After considering the relevant aspects, I find some force
in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act
reads as follows:
"199-A. Offences by juveniles.--(1) Where an
offence under this Act has been committed by a
juvenile, the guardian of such juvenile or the owner
of the motor vehicle shall be deemed to be guilty of
the contravention and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall
render such guardian or owner liable to any
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the
offence was committed without his knowledge or that
he exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the
Court shall
presume that the use of the motor vehicle by the
juvenile was with the consent of the guardian of such
juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle, as the
case may be.
(2) In addition to the penalty under sub-section (1),
such guardian or owner shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and with a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2) shall not apply to such guardian or owner if the
juvenile committing the offence had been granted a
learner's licence under section 8 or a driving licence
and was operating a motor vehicle which such
juvenile was licensed to operate.
(4) Where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a juvenile, the registration of the
motor vehicle used in the commission of the offence
shall be cancelled for a period of twelve months.
(5) Where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a juvenile, then, notwithstanding
section 4 or section 7, such juvenile shall not be
eligible to be granted a driving licence under section
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
9 or a learner's licence under section 8 until such
juvenile has attained the age of twenty-five years.
(6) Where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a juvenile, then such juvenile shall be
punishable with such fines as provided in the Act,
while any custodial sentence may be modified as per
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act,2000 (56 of
2000).]"
As per section 199A, the guardian of a juvenile can be
implicated in for the said offence only if a juvenile has
committed the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is
to be noted that, the said provision starts with the words
"Where an offence under this act has been committed by
juvenile". In this case, even though it is stated that the
juvenile drove the vehicle, no offence is charged against
the said juvenile. In the absence of any charge against the
juvenile for the commission of an offence under the Motor
Vehicles Act, no offence under section 199A against the
guardian of such juvenile would be attracted. In other
words, the commission of the offence by the juvenile is the
most crucial ingredient for attracting the offence under
section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. Besides the above ground, there is yet another aspect in
this case.No materials were produced to substantiate the
age of the petitioner's son, who allegedly drove the vehicle.
In the absence of any documents to prove the age of the
son of the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that a juvenile
drove the vehicle. Since the commission of an offence
under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by a
juvenile is a mandatory requirement for attracting the
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
offence under Section 199A of the Act, the absence of such
an offence and the materials to substantiate the
commission of such an offence by a juvenile would cut the
root of the prosecution case. Therefore, under no
circumstances can the petitioner be prosecuted for the
offences under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. The remaining offence is under Section 336 of the
Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:
"336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.--
Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to
endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine which
may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
The specific contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, apart from the allegation that the
petitioner permitted his minor son to drive the vehicle,
there is no allegation to attract the aforesaid offences. To
constitute the said offence, there must be a specific
allegation that the accused committed a rash and negligent
act to endanger human life or the personal safety of
others. In this case, even though it is stated that the driving
of the vehicle by the son of the petitioner was in a rash and
negligent manner, the said rashness or negligence was
attributed to the driver of the vehicle, only because of the
reason that he was a juvenile and was not having a driving
license. As far as the question of the minority of the driver
is concerned, absolutely no documents are produced to
substantiate the same and in the absence of such materials,
it cannot be concluded that the person driving the vehicle
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
was a juvenile at the relevant time. As rightly pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the statements
of the witnesses, apart from the fact that the driver was a
minor, no other acts which would qualify the rashness or
negligence are specified. In such circumstances, I am of
the view that the offence under Section 336 of the Indian
Penal Code also would not be attracted. "
5. As held by this Court, the guardian of a juvenile can be
proceeded against only if a juvenile has committed the offence under
the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case on hand, there is no case for the
prosecution that the juvenile has committed any offence. No
proceeding has been initiated against the juvenile either. Furthermore,
no materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate that the
person who rode the motor cycle is a juvenile. As far as Section 336 of
the IPC is concerned, a specific allegation is necessary that the
accused had committed a rash and negligent act intending to endanger
human life or the personal safety of others. As there is no material to
show that the person who drove the motor cycle is a juvenile and that
he is not having a driving license, the offence under Section 336 of the
IPC will not be attracted. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous case is to
be allowed.
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed in the
following manner:
All further proceedings against the petitioner in ST No.1124 of
2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur,
arising from Crime No.275 of 2023 Kadampuzha Police Station,
Malappuram, are quashed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
Crl.M.C No. 8999 of 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8999/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 0275 / 2023 OF
KADAMPUZA POLICE STATION DATED 12-04-
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
FILED BY INVESTIGATION OFFICER IN CRIME
NO. 0275 / 2023 OF KADAMPUZA POLICE
STATION DATED 18-04-2023
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC
NO. 7479/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 24-11-2022
