IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 469 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
MR. ASHWIN KUMAR, S/o Mr. Y.D.ANANTHRAJU, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.304, 6TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, 9TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 072.
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVCOATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIDADI POLICE, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.05.09 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1225/2009; THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1225/2009 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.217/2008 OF BIDADI POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl.
S.P.P. appearing for respondent.
2. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is:” Whether the petitioner, who outsourced the driver to KSRTC to ply the bus owned by the KSRTC, could be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?”
3. The undisputed facts are that, at the request of the KSRTC (accused No.3), petitioner herein lent services of a driver (accused no.1) for driving the bus belonging to accused No.3. He caused an accident resulting in two causalities. Charge sheet was laid against the petitioner under Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Said Section reads as under:
“180. Allowing unauthorized persons to drive vehicles. Whenever, being the owner or person in charge of a Motor vehicle, causes or permits any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
4. A plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that in case a person not holding any licence or permit is allowed to drive the vehicle, the owner or person in charge of the said Motor Vehicle becomes liable under Section 180 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Undeniably, in the instant case, accused no.3 was the owner or person in charge of the bus which was driven by accused no.1. In view of Section 180 of the M.V. Act, only the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle viz., accused no.3 could be proceeded under Section 180 of the Act and not the present petitioner. Hence, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner under Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The order dated 05.05.2009 passed in C.C.No.1225/2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is quashed only insofar as petitioner-accused no.2 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE psg*