JUDGMENT R. L, Khurana, J —The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the accused, challenges the judgment dated 2-5-1994, of Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Criminal Appeal No 16 of 1993, thereby affirming the judgment dated 5-8-1993 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (1), Mandi ; in Criminal Case No. 92-11 of 1991. By this judgment the accused has been convicted for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and under section 181 (3) (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs 1,000 for the offence under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under section 337, Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence for the offence under section 279, Indian Penal Code was awarded The accused was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to runt concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. On 12-7-1991 at about 3.15 p. m, the accused was driving taxi No. HPY 1057 from Mandi to Rewalsar, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life. At Talyar, on Mandi-Rewalsar road, he caused an accident resulting into the death of a child, Inder Singh, who was standing on the road side, alongwith one Pankaj. The said Pankaj also sustained the injuries in such accident> 3. On the basis of the report made to the police by the injured PW Pankaj, a case under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered with Police Station, Sadar, Mandi, vide F. I. R. No. 253 of 1991. After the necessary investigation and on a case having been found against the accused, he was arrested, challaned and sent up for trial for the offences under sections 279, 337, 304-A, Indian Penal Code and under section 181 (3) (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also revealed, during the course of the investigation of the case, that the accused was not possessed of a valid driving licence. 4. The accused did not plead guilty to the notice of accusation served upon him under section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure He claimed to be tried. It was also revealed, during the course of the investigation of the case, that the accused was not possessed of a valid driving licence. 4. The accused did not plead guilty to the notice of accusation served upon him under section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure He claimed to be tried. After the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate as aforesaid and the conviction and sentence imposed upon him also came to be confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. 5. The accused has not denied the accident. He has denied that the accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent driving. According to the accused, while he was in the process of overtaking a bus, which was moving ahead of him, at a high speed, the children all of a sudden tried to cross the road and he tried to save she children by, turning his vehicle towards the right side of the road and in such process the taxi, after dashing against a parapet, turned turtle and while so turning turtle, it happened to strike against the children. Though the accused preferred to lead evidence in defence, no such evidence was led. 6. While assailing the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel for the accused has urged that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the ingredients of neither section 279 nor section 304-At Indian Penal Code are made out. It is stated that if evidence of the alleged three eye-witnesses is held to be cogent and credible, at the most what can be concluded is that there was an accident and that the deceased, Inder Singh, died due to the injuries sustained by him in such accident. It has farther been contended that the evidence coming on the record is only to the effect that the taxi was being driven by the accused at a high speed. The mere fact that the taxi was being driven by the accused at a high speed will not render him liable for rash and negligent driving, within the meaning of section 279, Indian Penal Code. 7. On the contra, the learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in appeal. 8. 7. On the contra, the learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in appeal. 8. Section 279, Indian Penal Code, deals with rash and negligent driving of any vehicle or riding on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person In order to constitute an offence under section 279, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279, Indian Penal Code, rash and negligent manner may be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence, It is more than mere carelessness or error of judgment. 9. For an offence punishable under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, it has to be established that the act of the accused was responsible for resulting in the death and such act of the accused was rash and negligent. 10. In order to establish either of the sections 279 or 304-A, Indian Penal Code, rashness or negligence has to be proved. The only distinction is that in section 279, Indian Penal Code, rash and negligent act relates to the manner of driving or riding on a public way, while the offence under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code extends to any rash and negligent act falling shoit of culpable homicide. The distinction between rashness and negligence is that negligence connotes want of proper care, while rashness conveys of idea of reckless doing of an act without consideration of any consequences. Keeping in view the above said principles, the evidence coming on the record, in the present case is required to be examined in order to arrive at the conclusion whether the accident had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. 11. In order to bring home the offences against the accused, the prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 5, Pankaj, one of the injured, PW 3, Dharam Singh and PW 4, Lalit Kumar. 11. In order to bring home the offences against the accused, the prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 5, Pankaj, one of the injured, PW 3, Dharam Singh and PW 4, Lalit Kumar. Be it stated that PW Lalit Kumar is the uncle of the injured PW 5 Pankaj, while PW 3 is the father of PW 4 Lalit Kumar and grand-father of PW 5 Pankaj FW 4 Lalit Kumar runs a tea shop at the place where the accident had taken place. At the relevant time, he and his father PW 3, Dharam Singh, were present at his tea shop, when the accident took place The injured Pankaj PW 5, alongwith the deceased, Inder Singh, were standing by the side of the road near the ea shop. The tea shop of PW 4 falls on the right side of the road, when one moves from Mandi to Rewalsar Admittedly, at the relevant time, the accused was proceeding from Mandi to Rewalsar. It has come in evidence that the accident had taken place on the right side of the road The taxi had turned turtle and fallen by the side of the shop of PW4» The three eyewitnesses examined have categorically stated that the accused while overtaking another vehicle at a very fast speed had caused the accident. 12 In his statement recorded under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that he was taking a pass from a bus, which was moving at a high speed and that while he was in the process of overtaking, the children all of a sudden started trying to cross the road. He turned his vehicle in order to save the children, as a result of which his taxi dashed against a stone 13. It goes without saying that the drivers of automatically propelled vehicles, when attempting to overtake vehicles going ahead of them, ought to wait for proper opportunity. A duty is cast on them to exercise sufficient care and caution by looking ahead and behind in order to ascertain that it would be safe for them to overtake the vehicle moving ahead of them. A duty is cast on them to exercise sufficient care and caution by looking ahead and behind in order to ascertain that it would be safe for them to overtake the vehicle moving ahead of them. A further duty is cast on them to give a proper signal to the driver of the vehicle ahead in order to indicate that they would be overtaking the vehicles and wait for a reply signal from that driver permitting them to overtake and thereby indicating that the road ahead is clear and there would be no danger in overtaking If these minimum precautions are not observed by drivers of automatically propelled vehicles, while overtaking the vehicles going ahead of them, it will have to be considered that such driving is rash and negligent. 14. In the present case, as stated above, it is the admitted case of the accused that he was overtaking the bus going ahead of him at a very high speed. There is neither in the statement of the accused himself nor in the evidence to show that while trying to overtake the vehicle going ahead of him, he had taken the necessary precautions enumerated above On the failure of the accused to take the necessary precautions and in his attempt to overtake the vehicle going ahead of him at a high speed, the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused is writ large Therefore, in the present case, not only that the accused was found driving his taxi at a very high speed, the facts indicate that he was also rash and negligent in driving his taxi 15. Taking into consideration the entire evidence coming on the record, the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the accused was driving his taxi in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving he caused the accident, resulting into the injuries to PW Pankaj and the death of the deceased, Inder Singh. 16 The two courts below, therefore, have rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offences charged against him. 17. In so far as the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the accused has admitted that he was not holding any regular driving licence. He was holding only a learners licence. 16 The two courts below, therefore, have rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offences charged against him. 17. In so far as the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the accused has admitted that he was not holding any regular driving licence. He was holding only a learners licence. The Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed there under do not permit the holder of a learners driving licence to drive a public service vehicle, which in the present case is a taxi. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, he will be deemed to be driving the taxi at the relevant time without a driving licence. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted and sentenced under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 18. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused is affirmed The accused, who is on bail, shall surrender himself to his bail bonds before the trial Court, within a period of thirty days from today and to receive and undergo the sentences imposed upon him. Petition dismissed.