Skip to main content

Driving In High Speed On A Very Busy Road Can Be Said To Be Rash & Negligent

In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2007, Popat Bhaginath Kasar vs State of Maharashtra, the appellant as the driver of a tempo ran over a young boy who died at the spot. The trial court convicted the driver under Section 304A & 279 of IPC as well as Section 184 and 183(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appeal, the lower appellate court only convicted him under Section 304A of IPC and also reduced his sentence. Against this the driver appealing before the Bombay High Court and while admitting the accident, tried to establish that the speed was not very high rather the boy had coming running before the vehicle and driver inspite of best efforts by braking and trying to avoid failed to do so and ran over the boy.

The High Court observed that one of witness who was also the passenger had said that while the driver tried to avoid the boy, the vehicle was travelling fast. The court said that while there is no specific yardstick to measure what constitute rash driving, the records show that the vehicle skidded for 35 feet after braking which establishes very high speed.

The Court said that speed alone is not a criteria to reach to the conclusion about the rashness on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, at the same time, it will be one of the factor as an indicator to show that the driver was driving the vehicle in most rash and negligent manner if he is
unable to control the speed of the vehicle. Dismissing the revision, the court held that driving the vehicle in a high speed in the area which is thickly populated and having too much movements, is one of the shade by which it could be said that it is a rash and negligent driving.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more