Bhawani Singh, J.
1. This appeal, by the State, arises out of the judgment of acquittal by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (II), Shimla, in Case No. 174/2 of 1983, decided on31.12.1985. It relates to an offence under Sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 117, 3 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.8.1985 the police reached at the place of accident near the Victory Tunnel and found that jeep No. HIS 4806 and jeep No. HIM 2765 were going towards Victory Tunnel. From the opposite side bus bearing No. HIL 5266 came, driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and collided with jeep No. HIM 2765 and jeep No. HIS 4806. This collision caused injuries to Padam Singh, driver of one of the jeeps, besides Roop Singh Dogra, Chief Engineer, Electricity Board, Shimla, PW 2.
2. The accused Ram Chander was medically examined and it was found that he had taken alcohol. After investigation, challan under the aforesaid Sections was initiated.
3. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and the accused also examined witnesses in defence besides his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. He admitted the accident but attributed the same to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of these two jeeps. Besides this, he alleged that the steering of his bus went out of order. The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused. The State assails this judgment by way of this appeal. The accused has been served as per office report but he has not appeared. I, therefore, proceed to decide this matter.
4. Mr. M.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, submits that the offence has been proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He asserts that the trial court judgment based on certain minor contradictions is not legally sustainable. Therefore, he urges that looking to the clear, cogent and convincing evidence on the record, the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside and the accused punished for the commission of these offences.
5. Roop Singh Dogra, PW 2, who is Chief Engineer, Electricity Board, Shimla was one of the occupants of the jeep. He states that CM. Walia and C.L. Gupta, both Assistant Engineers, were sitting with him in the jeep while he was going to his house. He further states that when they were 100-150 feet away from the Victory Tunnel, a Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus which had HIL registration number came with great speed. Seeing this the driver of their jeep stopped but the bus hit their jeep from the back portion which created great impact. Due to this their jeep hit another jeep. He sustained injury and blood started coming from his forehead. He was taken to the hospital in a car. He states that this accident took place due to the rashness of the driver who was not driving the vehicle in a normal way. He denied the suggestion that the speed of the vehicle was 20-25 kmph or that the driver was not driving the bus at great speed. The other witnesses to support the rash driving by the accused are C.L. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, PW 3, CM. Walia, Assistant Engineer, PW4, Ajay Grover, PW 6. Diwakar Sharma, PW 7 and Nathu Ram, PW 10. All these witnesses have categorically stated about the rash and negligent act of the accused. PW 10 Nathu Ram has gone to the extent of stating that the way the driver was drivi ng his bus, it appeared that he had taken liquor All these witnesses are well placed officers and there is no reason to doubt their testimony.
6. Puran Chand, mechanic, PW 11, has stated that he examined all the three vehicles on 17.8.1983, that is, bus HIL 5266 and the jeeps. He gave his report of inspection, Exh. PW 11/A, to the police at the spot. In cross-examination he states that on examination he found that the steering of the bus was not in working order and that in case a vehicle develops this defect, there is possibility of the vehicle going to the side to which it is turned and the vehicle goes out of control. However, he admits that he did not check the vehicle after driving it, nor tested its brakes by opening the brake drum, nor checked the brake shoes. In his mechanical report, Exh. PW 11/A, he states: 'The vehicle was mechanically fit before the accident. The vehicle hit both the jeeps due to wrong side driving on the part of the driver.' At the end of his report he further states: 'I am of the opinion that this accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect.' The sum total of the statements of these witnesses clearly establishes that the bus had no defect before the accident and the accident did not take place due to any mechanical defect. The same occurred due to the wrong side driving of the driver. Accused Ram Chander was got medically examined (Certificate Exh. PW 12/A) and it was found that he had taken alcohol quite sufficiently. This fact is proved further by the report of the Chemical Examiner, Exh. P-X, who found alcohol in his blood as well as urine.
7. The road at this particular place is quite broad and metalled.
8. In view of the evidence on record, it is established that the accused was drunk while driving the vehicle. The vehicle was in order before the accident. It was being driven rashly as well as negligently on public way, as a consequence it caused the accident. The thrust was so great that this jeep when hit by the bus in turn hit the second jeep behind it. The result was that it also injured the occupants of the jeeps. In these circumstances, the prosecution has successfully established this case against the accused and the findings of the learned trying Magistrate are not in accordance with the evidence on the record and the judgment of the trying Magistrate is perverse calling for interference in this appeal against acquittal by this court.
9. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 31.12.1985 and convict the accused for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 117, 3 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the point of sentence looking to the fact that the accident took place on 17.8.1983 and considerable period has passed, besides, there being no evidence of any other involvement of the accused in such like cases, interest of justice would be met if sentence of fine is imposed upon the accused. I, therefore, order the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337, Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-under Section 279, Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused is further to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Sections 3 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case of the failure of the accused to pay the fines under Sections 337 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the punishment of imprisonment imposed upon him will run concurrently.