Bangalore District Court
State By Jayanagar Traffic P.S vs ) Srikanth Rao on 21 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018
C.C.No.1907/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Jayanagar Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Srikanth Rao,
S/o. B. Panduranga Rao,
R/at No.3/3, Ground Floor,
Sadananda Building,
5th cross, K.K. Village,
Bangalore
The date of commission of 20-02-2017
1. the offence
2. The offences complained of U/s.84(G) R/w.192(A) of M.V.Act.
3. Plea of the accused and his Pleaded not guilty
examination
4. Opinion of the judge Conviction
5. State represented by Learned APP
6. Accused defence by Sri B. Siddeshwara & Associates
7. Date of order 21-06-2018
***
2 C.C.No.1907/17
JUDGEMENT
The PSI of Jayanagar Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.84(G) R/w.192(A) of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-02-2017 at about 5:02:07 a.m./ p.m. the accused being the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 05/AF-5506 drove / rode the same on 40th cross road of Jayanagar, Bangalore. On inspection by C.W.1, who is on duty in uniform it is found that the accused vehicle was not in possession of AUTO / CAB / TAXI DISPLAY CARD, thereby accused has committed the violations vide police notice P.N.No.S/25/1351/318, U/s.84(G) R/w.192(A) of M.V.Act.
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got himself enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to 3 C.C.No.1907/17 him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he has not chosen to lead the defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records carefully.
6. The point that arise for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20-02-2017 at about 5:02:07 a.m./ p.m. the accused being the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/AF-5506 drove / rode the same on 40th cross road of Jayanagar, Bangalore. On inspection by C.W.1, who is on duty in uniform it is found that the accused vehicle was not in possession of AUTO / CAB / TAXI DISPLAY CARD, thereby accused has committed the violations vide police notice P.N.No.S/25/1351/318, U/s.84(G) R/w.192(A) of M.V.Act.?
2. What order?4 C.C.No.1907/17
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-02-2017 at about 5:02:07 a.m./ p.m. the accused being the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/AF-5506 drove / rode the same on 40th cross road of Jayanagar, Bangalore. On inspection by C.W.1, who is on duty in uniform it is found that the accused vehicle was not in possession of AUTO / CAB / TAXI DISPLAY CARD, thereby accused has committed the violations vide police notice P.N.No.S/25/1351/318, U/s.84(G) R/w.192(A) of M.V.Act.
9. The prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1 and one more witness on its behalf as P.W.2 and got marked three documents i.e., Notice Ex.P.1, Enclosed copy with notice as Ex.P.2 and Xerox copy of D.L. as Ex.P.3.
10. The following ingredients are required to be established to prove the offences U/s.84(g) of I.M.V. Act. i.e., 5 C.C.No.1907/17 Every permit shall have the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise formally affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides there of in a colour of colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and has reiterated the contents of complaint. The complainant has deposed that on 20-02-2017 upon receiving information from control room the higher officer has informed them to register complaint against Auto Rickshaw vehicles, which are not in possession of auto display cards. On the said date P.C.No.12425 of the said station produced Auto bearing registration No.KA-05/JF-5506 before him. On inspection of said auto it was found that the period of auto display card was expired. The said Auto Rickshaw was seized and accused was issued notice to appear before the Hon'ble Court to pay fine.
12. One more witness by name Pakeerappa was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of prosecution, who has deposed that on 20-02-2017 at about 7.30 a.m. he was assisting P.W.1. Upon the intimation given by 6 C.C.No.1907/17 P.W.1 he stopped an Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-05/AF-5506. Later he produced the said vehicle before P.W.1.
13. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 were subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused it was suggested to P.W.1 that by the order of the police commissioner of Mahanagara palike the police officers of different cadre has to perform their duty. According to the said resolution it is specifically mentioned that specific officers should deal with the seizure, investigation and imposing of fine in Motor Vehicle cases, this suggestion was denied by P.W.1. P.W.1 was confronted Ex.D.1 being Xerox State Gazette notification dt.12-10-2007. P.W.1 admits the said Ex.D.1 and he deposed that it is specifically mentioned that types of cases dealt by different officers in imposing fine. It was suggested that no procedure is mentioned in Ex.D.1 regarding the point that the ASI can register complaint under IMV Act, the same was denied by P.W.1 as not known to him. It was further suggested that no such law is framed 7 C.C.No.1907/17 by state government in Ex.D.1 regarding rules applicable for display cards.
14. Further P.W.1 was confronted Ex.D.2 being permit condition copy and it was suggested that in Ex.D.2 it is not mentioned that vehicle must possess the auto display card. The suggestion was admitted by P.W.1. Further it was suggested that according to Ex.D.2, non-possession of auto display card is not an offence, the same was admitted by P.W.1. P.W.1 was not given any written directions by his Police Inspector. P.W.1 has conducted investigation in the said case upon the information given by the police control room. P.W.1 was suggested that the contents mentioned in driving license are also mentioned in display card at the time of seizing of the offender vehicle. P.W.1 admits that he has not produced any document to show that the period of display card of offender vehicle was expired on the said date.
15. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that no such law is framed by State Government in State Gazette regarding the law applicable to auto display cards. Sec.84(g) of IMV Act explains only about permits. But do not explain 8 C.C.No.1907/17 about auto display cards. The prosecution has wrongly implicated the accused in the above case. Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the ASI do not have any authority to register the case and file Charge Sheet against the accused under the law relating to M.V.Act. as per Gazette notification Ex.D.1.
16. The learned APP argued that only for the reasons that there is no law under the M.V. Act, accused cannot escape from the guilty of offence. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborated with each other. The learned APP argued that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly deposed that accused was not in possession of valid auto display card in his vehicle when the said vehicle was seized by complainant police. The minor contradictions in the testimonies of witness is not material one. She further argued that as the complainant police has to set law in motion. Generally the police is the complainant in these types of criminal cases. Upon the instructions given by the higher authority the subordinate officers have to perform their duty. No such document will be 9 C.C.No.1907/17 available in this situation and the same cannot be created for the purpose of these cases.
17. To prove this point the learned APP has drawn the attention of this court for the various definitions defined in the code of criminal procedure 1973 and submitted that to know whether the offence alleged by the prosecution against the accused comes within the word "offence" defined in code of criminal procedure. Then it is necessary to know the definition and meaning of the word "offence" defined in code of criminal procedure, 1973. Sec.2(n) of Cr.P.C. defines the word "offence", which reads as follows:
Sec.2(n): "Offence" means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-trespass act, 1871, (1 of 1871);
18. The complainant police have acted according to the definition defined U/s.2(o) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as a officer in charge of police station. So it is necessary to know the definition and meaning of the word "officer in charge of a police station" defined in Code Of Criminal Procedure, 10 C.C.No.1907/17 1973. Sec.2(o) of Cr.P.C. defines the word "officer in charge of a police station", which reads as follows:
Sec.2(o): "Officer in charge of a police station"
includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;
19. According to the definition the word offence means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. In the instant case the prosecution alleges that the accused vehicle was not in possession of the valid auto display card on the day of seizure of the vehicle and amounts to an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.
20. The officer in charge of a police station includes, the police officer present at the station house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present.
11 C.C.No.1907/1721. The Sec.2(o) of Cr.P.C. empowers the police officer above the rank of constable as officer in charge of a police station, then the ASI being the officer in charge of a police station have an authority to perform his duty entrusted to him by the law.
22. The learned APP further submitted that Sec.202 of M.V.Act empowers police officer in uniform to arrest without warrant. Sec.202(2) and 202(3) of M.V.Act reads as follows:
Sec.202(2): A police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person, who has committed an offence under this Act, if such person refuses to give his name and address:
Sec.202(3): A police officer arresting without warrant the driver of a motor vehicle shall if the circumstances so require take or cause to be taken any step he may consider proper for the temporary disposal of the vehicle.
23. In order to prove that the complainant police have authority to register the case and file Charge Sheet for the alleged offence, the learned APP has drawn the attention of this court for the definitions defined in The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and argued that the word police officer is defined in The Karnataka Police Act 1963 wherein the police officer means any member of police force appointed or 12 C.C.No.1907/17 deemed to be appointed under the said Act and also includes special or additional police officer U/s.19 & 20 of the said Act. The learned APP further submits that the word police officer and his appointment is defined in The Karnataka Police Act 1963 U/s.2(16), Sec.19, Sec.20 and the said sections reads as follows:
Sec.2(16): "Police Officer" means any member of the Police Force appointed or deemed to be appointed under this Act and includes a special or an additional police officer appointed under section 19 or 20;
Sec.19: Special Police Officers: (1) Whenever it shall appear on an application of any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, that any unlawful assembly or riot or disturbance of the peace has taken place or may be reasonably apprehended in any place and that the Police Force ordinarily unemployed in the place is not sufficient for its preservation and for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of property in the place, the Commissioner, the Superintendent or any First Class Magistrate, or any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by Government, may by a written order signed by himself and sealed with his own seal appoint any able-bodied male person, whom he considers fit and who is between the ages of eighteen and fifty and resident in any neighbourhood to be a Special Police Officer to assist the Police Force, during such time and within such limits as the Commissioner, the Superintendent or Magistrate shall deem necessary.
(2) Every Special Police Officer so appointed shall on appoint. -13 C.C.No.1907/17
(a) receive a certificate in a form approved by the Government in this behalf;
(b) have the same powers, privileges and immunities and be liable to the same duties and responsibilities and subject to the same authorities as an ordinary Police Officer.
Sec.20: Appointment of additional Police. - (1) Additional Police Officers of such rank or grade for such time and on such pay as the authority specified by or under the provisions of this Act in that behalf may determine may be employed or deputed for the purpose stated in such provisions.
(2) Every additional Police Officer appointed, shall on appointment -
(a) receive a certificate in form approved by the Government in this behalf;
(b) be vested with all or such of the powers, privileges and duties of a Police Officers, as are specially mentioned in the certificate; and
(c) be subjected to the orders of the Commissioner or the Superintendent, as the case may be (3) The employment or deputation of such additional Police Officer may be made at the request of any person requiring such police and the cost of such employment shall be recovered in such manner as is provided by or under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force.
24. In order to prove that the word Auto Rickshaw comes within the definition of motor vehicle defined U/s.2(28) of IMV Act 1988, the learned APP has drawn the attention of this court towards the definition of the word motor vehicle defined in IMV Act, resolution passed by RTO Jayanagar, Bangalore 14 C.C.No.1907/17 regarding auto display cards and a document named as a study of Auto Rickshaw sector in Bangalore city
- December 2012.
Sec.2(28) of IMV Act defines motor vehicle or vehicles means:
Sec.2(28): "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding (twenty-five cubic centimeters).
25. Upon the perusal of deposition it is clear that the P.W.1 has admitted that PI and PSI has to register the case for offences mentioned in Gazette notification Ex.D.1. The said Ex.D.1 specifies the person specified in column No.2 may compound the offences mentioned in column No.3 & 4 for the fine amount mentioned in column No.5. The intention of legislation is very clear that the persons mentioned in column No.2 i.e., officer above the rank of PI and PSI (in charge police station) and the traffic PSI within the jurisdictional limits of their police station in the state. It draws a presumption that the offences 15 C.C.No.1907/17 mentions other than in Gazette notification Ex.D.1 are compounded by the persons who have jurisdictional limits within their police station in the state.
26. In the instant case the ASI being officer in charge of police station within his jurisdictional limits has executed his powers. Accordingly the complainant police has registered case and filed Charge Sheet for the alleged offence.
27. The prosecution has submitted a resolution passed by the RTO Jayanagar, Bangalore it reads as follows:
PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå B 09 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå B 79/2004-05 G¥À ¥ÉÇð¸ï PÀ«ÄµÀ£gÀ ï , ¸ÀAZÁgÀ , ¥ÀǪÀ𠫨sÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 01-12-2004 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå B207/Dgï.J¸ï./r¹¦/ ¸ÀA. ¥ïå/ 04 EzÀgÀ §UÉÎB ¤tðAiÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀAZÀj¸ÀĪÀ DmÉÆÃjPÁëUÀ¼À ZÁ®PÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ZÁ®£Á ¯ÉʸÀ£ïìUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã®£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄ®¨ÀsªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¯ÉʸÀ£ïì «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DmÉÄÁÃjPÁëzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtô¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÁtôPÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ qÉçÊ«AUï ¯ÉʸÀ£ïì «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 16 C.C.No.1907/17 ZÁ®PÀgÀ ¹Ãn£À »A§¢AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸À®ºÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ DmÉÆÃjPÁë ZÁ®PÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀUÁ»¹zÀ ¥Áæ¢Pü ÁgÀªÀÅ DAiÀiÁAiÀiÁ ¥Á½AiÀÄ°è ªÁºÀ£À £ÀqɸÀĪÀ ZÁ®PÀgÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ¤UÀ¢vÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ZÁ®PÀgÀ ¦ÃoÀzÀ »A§¢AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß gÀºÀzÁjAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ µÀgÀvÁÛV «¢ü¹ eÁjUÉ vÀgÀ®Ä ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.02.2005 gÀ M¼ÀUÀqÉ J¯Áè DmÉÆÃjPÁë ZÁ®PÀgÀÄ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV F µÀgÀwÛ£À ¥Á®£ÉUÉ UÀqÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ¯ÉʸÀ£ïì «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸ÀzÉ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è PÀ¤µÀÖ gÀÆ.2000/- (JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À) zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¤tð¬Ä¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
28. On perusal of this resolution it is clear at this stage that in the year 2004-05 the RTO Jayanagar, Bangalore has passed a resolution making a mandatory rule that all Auto Rickshaw vehicle shall possess the auto display card behind the auto driver seat, violation of the said rule is punishable with fine of Rs.2,000/-. The RTO being the permit issuing authority has made this mandatory permit rule in state transport department. As this permit rule is applicable made by the RTO, Sec.84(g) of IMV Act is applicable to the said rule.
17 C.C.No.1907/1729. According to this the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is the principal central Government legislation governing all motor vehicles. Apart from this, the State Government can makes and pass its own Acts and rules applicable to motor vehicles within the State. The central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 1989, the Karnataka Motor Vehicle rules, 1989 and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules 1957 are the main statutory directives applicable to all Motor Vehicles, including Auto Rickshaw cabs in Bangalore. The State Government with its legislative powers and the RTA and RTO's in charge of enforcement and implementation, are the main agencies governing and regarding the Auto Rickshaw system in the city.
Government of Karnataka - State Transport Department.
Transport is a wing of the Karnataka Government Secretariat, which has under it the Transport Department, a Commissionerate and four State Transport Undertakings. The Transport Secretariat is the decision-making authority pertaining to the transport sector in the State, and carries out its functions in accordance with the above mentioned Acts and Rules. Government policies and objectives are delivered through the Transport Secretariat and implemented by the Transport Department.
18 C.C.No.1907/17The State Government of Karnataka creates and stipulates the law and regulations governing autos in Bangalore city. In consultation with the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) they decide regarding the ban or release of new auto cab permits in the city and conditions attached to it.
Regional Transport Authority (RTA):
There are two Regional Transport Authorities for Bangalore, one each for the Urban and Rural Districts. The current members of the Bangalore Urban Regional Transport Authority (RTA) include:
Chairman: Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore Urban District. Member: Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Bangalore Traffic East Division.
Designated Nodal Secretary: Regional Transport Officer (Bangalore South, Jayanagar).
Additional Secretaries: Regional Transport Officers of the remaining 9 RTOs.
The RTA enforces in accordance with the State Government laws, regulations and notifications. It is the 'permit granting authority' for all transport vehicles, including auto rickshaw cabs and the decision-making authority for fixing and stipulating auto meter fares. In the past, it has also supported pilot initiatives such as the dial-up 'Easy Auto' services under the State Transport Department , which tried to use ICT to connect auto drivers and passengers.
Regional Transport Office (RTO):
Auto Rickshaw cabs are regulated by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) on the basis of government 19 C.C.No.1907/17 laws and regulations enforced by the RTA. The RTA directs with respect to permits and the RTOs implement the order. They are the 'permit issuing authorities' for all transport vehicles, including Auto Rickshaw cabs. They are also responsible for conducting tests and issue of auto cab driving license and DL and badge, new vehicle passing and registration, periodic vehicle fitness, test and certification, transfer and renewal of permits, etc. As such RTO sale the licensing, registration and ratifying authorities.
Traffic Police:
The Traffic police are a branch of the Bangalore City Police, and they are primarily in charge of regulating / monitoring traffic and on-ground code enforcement as per the Central and State Motor Vehicle Acts and Rules. They are responsible for ensuring that all motor vehicles follow traffic (driving, parking, road safety) rules and have the power to book cases against and fine offenders. With respect to auto rickshaws their roles/ responsibilities include:
On-ground Monitoring: The Traffic Police have the authority to catch and fine autos found violating permit conditions and traffic rules / regulations (stipulated in the CMVA and KMVR)43, as per the specified fine structure. However, they do not have the authority or mandate to deal with the legality of auto cab permits, fitness certificate, defective fare meters, etc., as these are functions related to other departments (RTO and Weights and Measures). In such matters that fall outside their domain, the Traffic Police can only book a case and send it to the RTO or directly to the court.
Public Complaints System: Apart from the State Transport Department / RTO, the 20 C.C.No.1907/17 Traffic Police have also taken up the initiative of setting up and maintaining a 'public complaints system' against errant auto drivers violating rules associated with plying the auto as a 'public service vehicle'. The complaint can be lodged through printed cards, phone or web-based services, which the Traffic Police are supposed to follow up with appropriate action. Display Card: The Traffic Police do not have any role in issuing the Auto Cab DL - Badge - this is a done by the RTO. However, they do issue the auto driver's 'Display Card' free of cost, which is required by law to be displayed in every auto behind the driver's seat. Based on the official RTO - issued Auto Cab DL-Badge, the Display Card carries the auto driver's DL - Badge numbers with validity period, registering RTO, police serial number, name, address and blood group, along a photo. As such, the Traffic police also maintain a database of all (or most) auto drivers in the city.
Auto Driver Display Card:
The Traffic Police do not have any role in issuing the Auto Cab DL - Badge - this is done by the RTO. However, they do issue the auto driver's 'Display Card' free of cost, which is required by law to be displayed in every auto behind the driver's seat. This rule was introduced by the Traffic Police in 2005 for security reasons, after some reported incidents of crime related to auto rickshaws. It was made a part of the permit conditions through a resolution passed in the RTA.
The card carries the auto driver's DL- Badge numbers with validity period, registering RTO, police serial number, name, address and blood group, along with a photo. All details are specified based on the official RTO - issued Auto 21 C.C.No.1907/17 Cab DL - Badge i.e., the driver brings his DL - Badge and the Police enter the same details and issue the Display Card.
As such apart from the RTOs, the Traffic Police do have their own computerized database of most, but perhaps not all, auto drivers in the city. Moreover, no separate address verification is done by the Traffic Police and nor is any physical or background check conducted while issuing the Display Card. Given that the RTO's database is itself not updated, accurate or even fully computerized and shared with the Traffic Police, has serious implications for on-ground monitoring and enforcement, rendering it largely ineffective.
Auto Driver's Display Card:
Issues and Analysis:
• Apart from Transport Dept, Traffic Police also maintain a computerized database of most (though perhaps not all) auto driver's operating in the city, through the issue of the Auto Driver's 'Display Card'.
• This is like a way of registration for auto drivers from outside the city but within the State; but they do not have computerized reference records for authentication while doing this.
• Also, the Display Card is issued purely on the basis of the RTO - issued 'Auto Cab DL
- Badge' and no background check (past criminal record, etc) or physical address verification is conducted by the Traffic Police while issuing this.
• Given that at the RTO's database is itself not updated, accurate or even fully computerized, has serious implications for on-ground monitoring and enforcement, rendering it largely ineffective.22 C.C.No.1907/17
30. On going through the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this court observes that, the very defence of the accused is that no such law is framed regarding the law applicable to auto display cards in Motor Vehicle Act. The very investigating officer i.e., ASI in the instant case do not have any authority to file Charge Sheet for the alleged offence. Then the burden of proof completely lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt to show that the alleged offence comes within the purview of IMV Act and the Investigating Officer in the instant case have authority to file Charge Sheet for the alleged offence.
31. On perusal of the study material and resolution passed by the RTO, Jayanagar, Bangalore which are produced by the prosecution are the best piece of evidences to prove that in order to regulate and monitor the law and order within the state, The state government can make its own Act and Rules applicable to Motor Vehicles within the State, apart from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being the principal central government legislation governing all the motor vehicles in the country.
23 C.C.No.1907/1732. The State Government of Karnataka creates and stipulates the laws and regulations governing autos in Bangalore city. In consultation with the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) they decide regarding the ban or release of new auto cab permits in the city and conditions attached to it.
33. Accordingly, the Sec.84 of IMV Act, speaks about the general conditions attaching to all permits and Sec.84(g) is one of the permit conditions which the prosecution alleges that accused has committed an offence under the said subsection. Sec.84(g) of I.M.V. Act reads as follows:
Sec.84(g): That the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.
34. To know the meaning of the word permit, the same is defined in Sec.2(31) of M.V.Act, 1988. The said section defines "permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act 24 C.C.No.1907/17 authorizing the use of a Motor Vehicle as a transport vehicle.
35. The study material and the resolution passed by RTO Jayanagar, Bangalore submitted by the prosecution envisages that the state government of Karnataka in consultation with RTA take decision regarding the ban or release of new auto cab permits in the city and conditions attached to it and in the same manner RTA authority can also make rules and regulations regarding auto display cards. As per the rules and regulations it is a required condition that every Auto Rickshaw should consists of valid auto display card and also one of the permit conditions put by the RTA, then section 84(g) of IMV Act is applicable to Auto Rickshaw vehicles. Traffic police of the Bangalore city police are primarily in charge of regulating or monitoring traffic and on - ground code enforcement as per the central and state motor vehicle acts and rules. The said traffic police are responsible for ensuring that all motor vehicles follow traffic rules including driving, parking, road safety and have the power to book the cases against and fine offenders. This inherent power confers on the traffic police to book the case and fine the offenders.
25 C.C.No.1907/17The traffic police do not have any role in issuing the auto cab DL - Badge - this is done by the RTO. However the traffic police do issue the auto driver's display card free of cost which is required by law to be displayed in every auto behind the driver's seat. This rule was introduced by the traffic police in 2005 for security reasons, after some reported incidents of crime related to Auto Rickshaws. It was made a part of permit conditions through a resolution passed in the RTA. The card carries the auto drivers DL - Badge numbers with validity period, registering RTO, police serial number, name, address and blood group, along with the photo. All details are specified on the official RTO - issued auto cab DL - Badge i.e., the driver brings his DL - Badge and the police enter the same details and issue the display card.
36. Hence for the reasons discussed above at this stage it is clear that the provisions U/s.84(g) of IMV Act is applicable to the violation of rules regarding auto / cab / taxi display card.
37. One more strong argument of learned counsel for defence is that the person who has filed Charge 26 C.C.No.1907/17 Sheet against accused is not having any authority to file Charge Sheet as per Ex.D.1. Gazette notification.
38. To prove this point the prosecution has provided the material available in the Karnataka Police Act, IMV Act 1988 and the very provision provided in the code of criminal procedure regarding who may be called as a officer in charge of the police station. According to the prosecution The K.P. Act, 1963 defines police officer, Sec.2(16) and related provisions provided U/s.19, 20 of the said Act regarding the police officer and his appointment. The prosecution argues that the very K.P. Act gives the inherent power to police officer to execute his duty when entrusted to him.
39. The prosecution further relied on the provisions provided U/s.202(2) & (3) of IMV Act. The learned APP submitted that Sec.202(2) & (3) of IMV Act empowers the police officer to arrest the person without warrant who commits offence under IMV Act and dispose the seized properly for temporary purpose.
27 C.C.No.1907/1740. On perusal of above definitions it is clear at this stage that in the instant case ASI being the officer in charge of the police station has successfully discharge his duty entrusted to him by the Code of Criminal Procedure. As well as he being a member of a police force as appointed U/s.19 or 20 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 he has discharged his duty provided to him by the said Act.
41. On perusal of the sub sections (2) & (3) of Sec.202 of IMV Act, it is clear that the said sections provide a provision to an on duty police officer in uniform may arrest any person without warrant for an offence committed under this Act, if such person refuses to give his name and address. As well as the said police officer shall if the circumstances so require take or cause to be taken any step he may consider proper for the temporary disposal of the vehicle.
42. In the present case the complainant police have arrested the accused for the offence punishable under the said Act, and has taken necessary steps for temporary disposal of the vehicle which is provided to a police officer under the said Act.
28 C.C.No.1907/1743. The accused has not lead any defence evidence to narrate the actual fact occurred on the day of occurrence of offence. Instead he has denied the incriminating evidence that has raised against him. There are so many illustrations which the auto drivers have got reward for the appreciable work done by them in Bangalore city by using the auto display cards but the accused being the Head of the Auto Union has approached this court with bare submissions that no such law exists for auto display cards and no police officer can file Charge Sheet for offence under auto display cards.
44. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant police officer have intentionally lodged Charge Sheet against accused, since accused was head of auto union. This draws the presumption that accused had aversion against the complainant police men. These contentions raised by the accused should not be supported by any one because no one is above the law and all are equal before the law.
45. On perusal pleadings, depositions, available materials on record it is clear at this stage that as per 29 C.C.No.1907/17 the law the complainant police have issued notice to accused and has given opportunity to pay the fine but accused has failed to do so, instead has approached this court by challenging the very law prevailing for the time being in force and the person who has acted according to the law.
46. On the perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence, at the outset it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/s.84(g) of I.M.V. Act . Hence for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 IN AFFIRMATIVE.
47. POINT No.2: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.192(A) of M.V.Act.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.192(A) of M.V.Act. On default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.30 C.C.No.1907/17
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 21st day of June 2018).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Ramakrishanaiah P.W.2: Pakeerappa
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Notice Ex.P.2: Enclosed copy with notice Ex.P.3: Xerox copy of D.L.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1: Copy of Karnataka Gazette Ex.D.2: Copy of conditions of Auto Rickshaw cab permit Ex.D.3: Photos Ex.D.4: Requisition (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.