JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karad in Criminal Case No. 1115/72. On 29th October, 1972 at about 9.45 p.m. Shri Yeshwantrao Mohite, a Minister of the Maharashtra State, was travelling along with some others in a car No. BML 9007 from Karad towards Kolhapur. He was followed by a police jeep which is being described as a pilot car. By the time his car reached near about mile stone Nos. 106/4 and 106/5, a truck bearing No. MYL 6100 was seen coming from the Kolhapur side towards Karad. Prosecution alleges that this truck was followed by another truck No. MHL 2707. It is the case of the prosecution that the pilot car which was following the car of the Minister gave light signal to truck MYL 6100 to slow down. Accordingly that truck slowed down and practically came to a halt. At about this time the Ministers car was crossing the stationary truck, when the truck No. MHL 2707 dashed against the rear portion of truck MYL 6100 and also against the right side portion of the Ministers car BML 9007. This accident caused damage to the two trucks and the car, and also caused simple hurts to some of the inmates of the Ministers car. Police Constable Dinkar Patil travelling on MHL 2707 got an injury to the finger which caused a fracture. The accused was the driver of this truck MHL 2707 which caused the accident. He was, therefore, prosecuted for rash and negligent driving and causing simple as well as grievous hurts to the various persons. A charge-sheet came to be filed against him for offences under sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. The defence of the accused was that he was travelling at a reasonable speed on a High-way in the correct direction and was following the truck MYL 6100. That truck stopped suddenly. Though he tried to check the speed of his truck he could not succeed as the truck in front stopped almost suddenly, without any prior intimation. Even this sudden stopping of the truck was due to the signal given by the police jeep, which was really unnecessary. That truck stopped suddenly. Though he tried to check the speed of his truck he could not succeed as the truck in front stopped almost suddenly, without any prior intimation. Even this sudden stopping of the truck was due to the signal given by the police jeep, which was really unnecessary. The accident was caused not by the rash and negligent driving or rash and negligent act of the accused but by unforeseen circumstances and the wrong move taken by the police jeep in giving signal. After hearing the evidence before him, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accident is not the direct cause of the accuseds driving the truck but it has been caused by other circumstances, for which the accused was not at all responsible. He, therefore, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved the State has filed this appeal. The date, time and place of the accident are not in dispute. The order in which the motor vehicles moving on either side is also not in dispute. From Karad to Kolhapur the front car was BML 2707 followed by a police jeep. In the truck No. MYL 6100 from Kolhapur towards Karad (P.W. 3) Samiulla was seated in the drivers seat. That truck was in the front followed by truck MHL 2707 driven by the accused. On the truck of the accused a Constable of Police Dinkar Patil was travelling from Islampur to Karad. The Ministers car was carrying about 6/7 persons and was being driven by Dnyanu Kanase. Latif Jangubhai Mulani was the driver of the police jeep. Prosecution examined these three drivers and also Constable Dinkar Patil and Vasudeo Deshpande, a news paper reporter and an inmate of the Ministers car. A panchnama of the scene of the offence was drawn up after the accident has been produced through the Investigating Officer but the panch witness who was present for the pancahnama has not been examined. It is the evidence of Latif Mulani (P.W. 1), that his car gave a light signal asking truck No. MYL 6100 to slow and stop. Accordingly that truck slowed down and stopped. That was done because the Poona Bangalore Road was at that time under repairs and there was hardly sufficient space for the two cars or trucks to cross on the road. Accordingly that truck slowed down and stopped. That was done because the Poona Bangalore Road was at that time under repairs and there was hardly sufficient space for the two cars or trucks to cross on the road. As soon as the front truck stopped the Ministers car proceeded ahead to cross it but at once met with an accident having come in contact with another truck MHL 2707 driven by the accused. The prosecution case as presented before the learned Magistrate was that the front truck was slowing down as a result of the single given by the police jeep. The accused was then trying to overtake that truck and in that process dashed against the Ministers car. Both these points are disputed. Whether the signal was given at all and what was that signal is the first doubt raised before the trial Court. It was also denied that the accused was trying to overtake the truck in front and in that process the accident took place. So far as the of part singal it is concerned, when I made a query with the learned Public Prosecutor whether any such light signal is prescribed by Motor Vehicle Act, he could not enlighten me on the subject. A peculiar feature of this case is that the pilot car is supposed to be behind the Ministers car. By remaining behind, what kind of piloting was being down is again difficult to understand. What is then suggested is that while slowing down or stopping the driver of truck No. MYL 6100 Samiulla also gave a signal to the rear truck to slow down or stop. This is also a disputed question of fact. The Evidence in that behalf is again conflicting. Samiulla and Dinkar Patil talk about this signal. Whether it is light signal or signal by hand is also not clear. If, therefore, the evidence is conflicting as to whether the signals were made, and if so, in what manner, one has to consider whether there could have been any signal at all. The stand of the prosecution has been shifted from time to time and from Court to Court. Before the learned Magistrate the main argument was that the accused tried to overtake the truck in front of him in spite of the signals. The learned trial Magistrate found difficult to accept that there was any signal really made. The stand of the prosecution has been shifted from time to time and from Court to Court. Before the learned Magistrate the main argument was that the accused tried to overtake the truck in front of him in spite of the signals. The learned trial Magistrate found difficult to accept that there was any signal really made. The manner in which the accident is described to have taken place, it is extremely doubtful whether the accused was really overtaking the front truck. The case of the accused is that the front truck stopped suddenly and in spite of his efforts to control his vehicle the accident took place. This theory has been accepted by the learned trial Magistrate on an analysis of the total evidence on the record. Having come to that conclusion he says that the stopping of the truck may be the immediate cause of the accident, but the sudden stopping of the truck MYL 6100 is again due to the fortuitous circumstance like the signal by the police jeep. If no signal was given by the police jeep the two trucks could have passed on comfortably and the Ministers car would have crossed in due course without any difficulty. It is the extra precaution that the police jeep took in trying to administer caution to the truck MYL 6100 that really seems to be the reason why this accident took place. On that reasoning the learned Magistrate found that the accuseds conduct is not the direct cause of the accident, but the accident is in fact due to the signal given by the jeep making the truck MYL 6100 change normal course suddenly. When this situation was found to be fairly logical, the learned Public Prosecutor addressed me by saying that even on that assumption the negligence of the accused cannot be excused. If we assume that the front truck stopped suddenly the accused who was following it should have been in a position to stop his truck without touching the front truck or the car. Unless he was travelling so close that there was hardly any time or distance to control his vehicle, he could not have collided with the front vehicle as well as the side vehicle in which the Minister was travelling. Keeping less distance between the two trucks than the minimum required is again an act of negligence of the accused. Unless he was travelling so close that there was hardly any time or distance to control his vehicle, he could not have collided with the front vehicle as well as the side vehicle in which the Minister was travelling. Keeping less distance between the two trucks than the minimum required is again an act of negligence of the accused. Driving the truck with such insufficient distance would also amount to rash and negligent driving. This argument does not seem to have been specifically addressed to the learned Magistrate. Before I actually conclude how the accident must have taken place, I must point out that no map has been drawn of the position of the road and the condition of the road at this spot of the accident. Neither the R.T.O. nor the police has cared to draw any map of the offence. A vague and general evidence is given that Poona-Bangalore Road was under repairs. It may be so, but the relevant question is the condition of the road at the particular spot where the accident took place. No effort is made to describe in detail through the witness the condition of the road at the spot of the accident. The panchanama which has been merely proved through the officer without examining the panch witness describes the tarred surface at the scene of the offence having 15 ft. width. The tarred surface is quite sufficient for the two trucks to cross. If that was the condition of the road the signal requiring the opposite vehicle to slow down was actually not necessary. I do not want to suggest that on High-ways people can drive as they like without exercising any caution. A moving vehicle is always dangerous and must always be kept under control. However, a fast moving vehicle in the modern times in supposed to be travelling with speed on the High-ways. A balance therefore must be struck between reasonable speed and precaution. On High-ways like Poona-Bangalore Road truck drivers would normally expect to get a clear road and driving at a sufficient speed during night time. The truck driving are also know to be travelling in groups. If one truck is following the other, they usually travel almost at the same speed. The speed of the vehicle may very or the alignment of the road might cause some obstruction to a particular vehicle. The truck driving are also know to be travelling in groups. If one truck is following the other, they usually travel almost at the same speed. The speed of the vehicle may very or the alignment of the road might cause some obstruction to a particular vehicle. The distance between two such trucks travelling one after the other may not remain constant. It may some times be much less and it may get increased. No hard and fast rule can be made as to how much distance should be kept in between two trucks. There is no direct evidence in this case about the distance between the two trucks. Though Police Constable Dinkar Patil was available as a passenger in the truck of the accused no questions have been asked to him about the distance between his truck and the front truck. The argument addressed to me in this Court is principally based upon the effect of accident itself. Since there has been a collision, it is argued, the distance must be very short. Looking to the manner in which and the time at which the trucks were travelling I should suppose that the accused was entitled to think that he would normally have an unobstructed travel. True that he must be cautious and must imagine that the front truck might stop suddenly. So far as the particular spot where the accident took place is concerned, there was no local reason whatsoever for the front truck to slow down. It was the signal of the police jeep, which was unexpected, which made him stop suddenly. The front driver Samiulla having noticed that it is a police jeep which is giving him signal, perhaps realised that some V.I.P. car is travelling. Out of anxiety to respond to the police jeep he must have stopped suddenly. The fact that the accuseds truck had collided with the front truck as well as the Ministers car show that he was almost caught between these vehicles unaware. Mr. Baadkar for the accused argued that assuming that some credence is given to the theory propounded by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Court must also consider the possibility of an error of judgment which is quite different from rash and negligent act. Mr. Baadkar for the accused argued that assuming that some credence is given to the theory propounded by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Court must also consider the possibility of an error of judgment which is quite different from rash and negligent act. If the accused was expecting to have a very uninterrupted travelling and suddenly had no change the course due to unexpected obstruction even if the distance in between was not much that can be attributed to an error of judgment and not negligence or rash driving. I think that there is considerable force in the argument of Mr. Badkar. So far as the details of the evidence are concerned I may point out that the learned Magistrate has clearly examined the evidence. He found that there is distinction about the nature of the signal made by Samiulla, the driver of the front truck. One of the occupants of the Ministers car Mr. Vasudeo Deshpande admits that he saw the truck of the accused only when the accident took place and had not noticed the vehicle earlier. It that could be the position of the occupants of the Ministers car, the accused as well could not notice any vehicle, coming from ahead of him. Even if the accused was trying to swerve to the right with a view to overtake the front truck which was slowing down or was stopping, the accused could not blamed for it. That would not amount to negligence. If in that process, he found the car ahead and again swerved to the left, he would dash against both, as he did. In the circumstances, which are eloquent, I think it is difficult to hold that the accuseds negligence is the real cause of accident. Unforeseen stopping of the front vehicle, which is a result of the police jeep signal, is the real cause of the accident. In the circumstances the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate appears to be correct and is maintained. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bound of the accused to stand cancelled. -----