Kerala High Court

Said Ummer Thangal vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2023

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA,
                                 1945
                    CRL.MC NO. 6708 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 491/2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
              CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ,NILAMBUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


          SAID UMMER THANGAL, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O POOKKOYA
          THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PULLIPADAM
          P.O., MAMPAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676542

          BY ADV MOHAMMED SHAFI.K


RESPONDENT/STATE:


          STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC
          PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
          KOCHI -, PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:
          SEENA. C PP


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   13.09.2023,   THE   COURT    ON    THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023

                              2

                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              ---------------------
                  CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023
          ---------------------------
          Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023

                           ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.491/2023 on

the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Nilambur arising from Crime No.318/2023 of Nilambur

Police Station. The above case is registered alleging

offence punishable under Section 336 IPC and Section 5 r/w

Section 180, 199A(1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 23.03.2023 at

about 12.00 hrs, a juvenile was found riding a motorcycle

bearing Registration No.KL10 AS 3877. The minor is alleged

to have ridden the motorcycle in a rash and negligent

manner, endangering the life and personal safety of the

general public. In the capacity of the Registered Owner of

the vehicle purportedly ridden by the juvenile in question,

who is the nephew of the petitioner, the petitioner herein is

alleged to have committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. After hearing both sides, I think Annexure A1 F.I.R

and Annexure A2 final report will not stand in the light of

the dictum laid down in Crl.MC No.7479/2022 which is

followed in Crl.MC No.4779/2023. It will be better to extract

the relevant portion of the judgment in Crl.MC

No.7479/2022, which reads as follows:-

"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 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.

CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023

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 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 CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023

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 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 CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023

same and in the absence of such materials, it cannot be concluded that the person driving the vehicle 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."

6. As held by this Court, the guardian of a juvenile

can be proceeded against only if a juvenile has committed

the offense under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case on

hand, there is no case for the prosecution that the juvenile

has committed any offense. 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

offense under Section 336 of the IPC will not be attracted. CRL.MC No.6708 of 2023

Hence, this Crl.MC is to be allowed.

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed

in the following manner:-

All further proceedings against the petitioners in

C.C.No.491/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Nilambur arising from Crime

No.318/2023 of Nilambur Town Police Station are

quashed.