P.K. Misra, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The present appellant had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1266 of 2008 challenging the order dated 8.1.2008 whereunder the competent authority passed an order to suspend the driving licence for a period of six weeks between 1.2.2008 and 31.7.2008 and thereby debarring the appellant from driving any motor vehicle.
2. The learned single Judge by placing reliance upon Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has declined to interfere with the order passed by the authority.
3. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act relates to the power of the appropriate authority to revoke driving licence. Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under :-
19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence. -(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he-
c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence;
5. Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code being relevant for the present purpose, is extracted hereunder:-
304-A. Causing death by negligence.-Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, even though an offence u/s 304-A IPC is cognizable, the language of the section indicates that the offence is committed when there is a rash and negligent driving. It is submitted by him that a person, who is alleged to have committed an offence u/s 304-A by rash and negligent driving, cannot be said to have "used the motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence". According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the provisions contained in Section 19(1)(c) would be applicable only where the person concerned deliberately "used the motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence" and not where because of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle, an offence u/s 304-A is committed. In support of such a contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision reported in
6. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid ingenious submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, though apparently attractive, is not worthy of acceptance. Keeping in view the context in which the provision contained in Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act is made, we do not think that Section 19, particularly Section 19(1)(c), would be attracted only where the commission of a cognizable offence has been made by the deliberate use of the motor vehicle. Section 19(1)(c) would also take within its sweep where on account of rash and negligent use of the vehicle, a cognizable offence is committed.
7. We have carefully gone through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the aforesaid decision, the Lahore High Court was considering the question in the context of Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 516-A of Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder :-
516-A. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and, if the property is subject to speedy or natural decay, or it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may after recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision, the learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court observed that when an offence u/s 338 IPC has been committed it could not be said that the vehicle was used in the commission of an offence within the meaning of Section 516-A of Cr.P.C. We do not think the ratio of the said decision can be made applicable, while considering the question of revocation or suspension of the licence as envisaged u/s 19, particularly 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. The power to revoke the licence is granted to the authority with a view to prevent a person unworthy of driving a vehicle from driving temporarily or even permanently. If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, even a person, who drives a vehicle negligently and recklessly and causes death, will continue to drive the vehicle in future with impunity with the existing licence. Such interpretation would give rise to starting consequences and defeat the very purpose of incorporating Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not acceptable. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
