Jumbo Road lines Ltd. is a public limited company engaged in business of inter-state goods transportation. The company owns a fleet of more than ten…
CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · PYQS · September 2025
Jumbo Road lines Ltd. is a public limited company engaged in business of inter-state goods transportation. The company owns a fleet of more than ten heavy-duty trucks which have the capacity to transport up-to 1000 tons of goods in one consignment as per the registration. The transportation company received an order to transport 1000 tons of goods particularly plastic parts of automobiles to be loaded from a production facility in Surat, Gujarat and offloaded in an automobile factory in Pune, Maharashtra. The driver loaded the heavy-duty truck to its maximum capacity. On its way to Pune, the driver further loaded 100 tons of other goods from a local trader who lured him for some extra payment. The driver on his way with his overloaded truck rammed into a road divider causing damage to the public property. The local traffic police charged Jumbo Road lines Ltd. for overloading the truck under the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988 and filed a suit against the transport company. Further the Highway Authority filed another suit against the company under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 for damaging the dividers and iron girders installed on the road-sides. The Jumbo Road lines Ltd. opposed the suits on the plea of double-jeopardy and double punishment for the same act under two different legislations. Whether the plea given by the road-lines of double-jeopardy be accepted by the court? Discuss based on underlying principle and concepts referring the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Suggested Answer and Working Notes:
As per section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments but shall not be punished twice for the same offence. As per Article 20 (2) of the Constitution, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The combined reading of provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution apply only when the two offences which form the subject of prosecution is the same, i.e., the ingredients which constitute the two offences are the same. If the offences under the two enactments are distinct and not identical, none of these provisions will apply. In the given question, the local police charged Jumbo Road Lines Limited for overloading the truck under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Highway Authority filed another suit for damage of public property (iron girders installed on roadside), under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. As the offences under the two enactments are distinct and not identical, hence the plea given by the road lines of double jeopardy cannot be accepted by the Court.
Topics: The General Clauses Act, 1897
Related Questions in this Topic
- 15. Ms. Farah is examining a Central Act which received the assent of the President on 10th January 2026, but the Act it...
- 14. Which of the following statements is/are correct with respect to the effect of repeal of an enactment under Section ...
- 14. Ritika pledged her shares in XYZ Ltd. as security for a loan. During a discussion, one of her friends argued that sh...
- 13. Bright Future Welfare Association, an unincorporated association of individuals, entered into a statutory arrangemen...
- The Community Development Incentives Act, 2010 provides certain tax benefits to organizations engaged in charitable and ...