In Re: P. Narayana Menon

Somasundaram, J.—The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an offence under S. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. He has been found guilty in respect of an accident which occurred in front of the office of the Madras Literary Society,

College Road, Nungambakkam. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was emerging from the compound of the Madras Literary Society when the complainant's car was coming from west to east along that road. He the complainant was on the proper road side of the road and the place at which the accident took place was on a tarred portion of the road which had 12 feet of untarred portion on the side from which the accused was emerging and the distance between the untarred portion and the entrance to the gate where there is a small drainage channel will be about 5 or 6 feet. This shows that the accused has come this distance of 18 feet on to the main road and the accident has taken place on the main

road. It is clear that if the accused had kept a proper look out he could have seen the complainant's car coming on his right side. The rule of the road here is that the petitioner must give way to the car coming on the right. This accident has undoubtedly taken place on account of want of due care and attention on the part of the petitioner herein. I have already pointed out in my judgment in Ganesans, King 1949 M.W.N. Crl. 132, that

S. 116 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act is practically a reproduction of S. 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 of England without the words ""if

any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly."" The other portion of S. 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 of England is practically word

for word copied in S. 116 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act.

In addition to this S. 11 of the Road Traffic Act of England, there is another section in that Act which provides penalty for a person driving a

motor vehicle or. a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. That is S. 12 of the

Road Traffic Act. 1930. In the above decision I have also pointed out that there is no corresponding provision in the Indian statute. When we legislate on the model of certain English Acts and take certain sections verbatim and omit certain sections therein, the necessary inference is that what has been omitted and made punishable under the omitted section is not punishable under the Indian law. In my view the present case will fall more under S. 12 of the English Act for which there is no corresponding provision in the Indian law. But it has been pointed out by the State

Prosecutor that Regulation 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act will apply to the facts of this case. Regulation 6 runs as follows:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon.

Though Regulation 6 is not exactly on all fours with S. 12 of the English Act, I think it may still apply to the facts here, as in this case the

petitioner had entered the intersection in the main road without being aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of other persons. On the facts of the case the petitioner has violated Regulation 6 in the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and not S. 116 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1 would therefore alter the conviction under S. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act to one under S. 112 of the Act read with Regulation 6 of the

Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 20, in default, to suffer one week's simple imprisonment. The excess fine, if it had been paid, will be refunded.

I would suggest a provision similar to S. 12 of the Read Traffic Act, to be introduced in our Motor Vehicles Act also as cases of this nature will

more appropriately fall under S. 12 of the English Act than under any other provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petition is dismissed with the

above modification.