Delhi District Court
State vs Fateh Bahadur on 9 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KAMALDEEP KAUR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (DIGITAL TRAFFIC COURT),
SOUTH COURTS, NEW DELHI
TC 12260/2025 STATE Vs. FATEH BAHADUR
E-challan Details: DL63101250610093009 -- DL1LAM3761
U/s 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
1 CNR Number : DLST02-038068-2025
2 Name of the accused, parentage & : Fateh Bahadur, S/o Sh. Ram
residential address
Laut, R/o H.no. D-2//619 T/F
Kh. No. 127, G No. 6 Pusta 3
Sonia, Vihar Karwal Nagar,
North East 110094
3 Offence complained of or proved : 185 Motor Vehicle Act 1988
4 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5 Final Judgment : convict
6 Date of judgment : 09.10.2025
Date of Institution : 07.08.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 09.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present judgment, this court shall dispose of challan bearing TC No. 12260/2025, E-challan Details:
DL63101250610093009 of vehicle bearing Registration No. DL1LAM3761 dt. 10.06.2025 against Fateh Bahadur, U/s 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act").
Brief facts:
2. It is alleged against the accused that the Vehicle No. DL1LAM3761 was being drunken driven by him at South Ex. Ring Road , within jurisdiction of Defence Colony Traffic Circle, New Delhi, in contravention of Section 185 of the M.V. Act.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the cognizance of the offence had already been taken by Virtual Traffic Court and a fine was proposed TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 1 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:28 +0530 for the summary disposal of the case under Section 208 of the M.V. Act. The accused exercised the option to contest the present challan on the web portal of virtual traffic court pursuant to which the challan was transferred to this court for adjudication as per law.
Proceedings before the court
4. The accused entered his first appearance on 07.08.2025. Notice u/s 274 BNSS (251 Cr.P.C.) was framed against him on 07.08.2025 through Ld. Counsel, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the statement u/s 274 BNSS (251 Cr.P.C.), it has been stated that the he did not drive the vehicle in drunken state. Even after the breath analyzer test nothing was shown at the alchometer. Two different challans have been issued at the gap of 10 minutes. At first, challan was issued for no entry violation and the present challan was issued for drunk-driving. Morover,the present challan was issued after 10 minutes by different official. Hence, the present challan is wrongly issued against me. I have been falsely implicated.
5. On behalf of the Prosecution, PW-1 Inspector Sanjeev Kumar on behalf of ASI Subodh had come to depose before the court who had stated that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. DL1LAM3761 was being drunken driven by the accused at about 09:30 PM on 10.06.2025, at South Ex Ring Road, within jurisdiction of Defence Colony Traffic Circle, New Delhi. He has furnished the Pen Drive (Art. PW1/A) having two video recordings of the incident. In one of the video recordings, the reading of the breath analyser is shown as 118mg/100mL. In another recording, the registration number of the offending vehicle is captured.
6. On examination U/s 351 of B.N.S.S., the accused denied the allegations and stated the same defence as at the time of framing of notice. The accused did not lead any defence in his favour.
TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 2 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) KAMALDEEP Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:34 +0530 Final Arguments
7. Final arguments were addressed by the Ld. APP and Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. APP for the state argued that the accused be convicted for the offence. The prosecution witness has stayed consistent throughout his cross examination and has also furnished the pen drive along with the certificate under section 61 of the BNSS.
However, the accused has repeadtdly said that the present challan was issued within the time frame of half an hour. How could that be possible that in the earlier challan, no challan for drunk driving violation was issued. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that accused cannot be convicted in the present case,the accused is falsely implicated in the present case. Ld. APP in response to this argument has stated that there is no rule or limit that two challans could not be issued against the violator at any point of time.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties as well as the materials placed on record before this court.
Findings and Reaons Thereof:
9. At this stage, it would be pertinent to examine the relevant provisions of law. The accused has been indicted for the offence under section 185 M.V. Act. Section 185 of the Act states that:
"185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. - Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg.
per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or in any other test including a laboratory test, or
(b)is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 3 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:40 +0530 shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine of fifteen thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expression "drug" means any intoxicant other than alcohol, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt, or preparation of such substance or material as may be notified by the Central Government under this Act and includes a narcotic drug and psychotropic substance as defined in clause (xiv) and clause (xxiii) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985."
10. At the foremost, it is important to state that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in the present case, has relied upon the oral testimony of PW1 SI Birender Kumar and the Pen Drive which is Art. PW1/A, containing two video recordings of the incident in question. A certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is Mark A, is also furnished in support of the same. The case of prosecution is that the violating vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAM3761 was being drunken driven by the offender at about 9:30PM on 10.06.2025, at South Ex Ring Road, within the jurisdiction of Defence Colony Traffic Circle and in the breath analyser test, the amount of alcohol in the blood of the offender was found to be 118mg/100ml. To prove the test results, prosecution has relied upon the video recordings contained in Art. PW1/A, which clearly show the reading in the breath analyser to be 118mg/100mL. Further, the registration number of the violating vehicle is also visible in the video recording.
11. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid video recording, it is evident that the accused had consumed liquor before driving the offending TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 4 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:46 +0530 vehicle. His only defence is that how two challans could possibly be issued within an half an hour for separate violations. If the accused had drank alcohol, then in first challan itself traffic official could have issued challan for drunk - driving. During the entire trial, the accused has not objected to other evidence of the prosecution.
12. The accused has cross-examined the Prosecution Witness PW-1 on the abovesaid pleas. The earlier challan of No Entry violation was placed on record, Mark B and no major contradictions could be extracted from the testimony of the said witness.
13. The abovementioned reasoning has neither been rebutted through the cross examination of the prosecution witness. Hence, on this bare argument of the defence, it cannot be accepted that the accused did not drink. Thus, the Prosecution Witness PW1 has remained unrebutted throughout his cross examination. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the plea of the accused that the cannot be relied upon as there are two different challan for the separate violations within particular frame of time, does not stand the ground.
14. The provisions of section 203 of the Act can also be looked into. Section 203 deals with breath test and read as follows:
"203. Breath tests. - (1) A police officer in uniform or an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, as may be authorised in this behalf by that Department, may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place to provide one or more specimens of breath for breath test there or nearby, if such police officer or officer has any reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed an offence under section 185:
Provided that requirement for breath test shall be made (unless it is made) as soon as reasonably practicable after the commission of such offence.
(2)If a motor vehicle is involved in an accident in a public place and a police officer in uniform has any reasonable cause to suspect that the person who was TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 5 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:52 +0530 driving the motor vehicle at the time of the accident had alcohol in his blood or that he was driving under the influence of a drug referred to in section 185 he may require the person so driving the motor vehicle, to provide a specimen of his breath for a breath test-
(a)in the case of a person who is at a hospital as an indoor patient, at the hospital,
(b)in the case of any other person, either at or near the place where the requirement is made, or, if the police officer thinks fit, at a police station specified by the police officer:
Provided that a person shall not be required to provide such a specimen while at a hospital as an indoor patient if the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge of his case is not first notified of the proposal to make the requirement or objects to the provision of a specimen on the ground that its provision or the requirement to provide it would be prejudicial to the proper care or treatment of the patient.
(3)If it appears to a police officer in uniform, in consequence of a breath test carried out by him on any person under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), that the device by means of which the test has been carried out indicates the presence of alcohol in the person's blood, the police officer may arrest that person without warrant except while that person is at a hospital as an indoor patient.
(4)If a person, required by a police officer under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, refuses or fails to do so and the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his blood, the police officer may arrest him without warrant except while he is at a hospital as an indoor patient.
(5)A person arrested under this section shall while at a police station, be given an opportunity to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test there.
(6)The results of a breath test made in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be admissible in evidence.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section breath test, means a test for the purpose of obtaining an indication of the presence of alcohol in a person's blood carried out, on one or more specimens of breath provided by that person, by means of a device of a type approved by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purpose of such a test."
TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 6 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:58 +0530
15. Section 203 of the Act thus empowers a police officer in uniform or an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department to ask a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place to provide for a specimen of his breath for breath test, if he has any reasonable cause to suspect the commission of offence under section 185.
16. A conspectus of the aforesaid provisions leads to the conclusion that the offence under section 185 is committed upon the breach of an objective standard, viz. the presence of alcohol in excess of 118mg per 100mL of driver's blood in a test of breath analyser. There is no law of the land which prohibits the traffic officials to issue the challan for the offences fall under the Motor Vehicles Act.
17. It can thus be opined that the contention raised by the defence that the concerned police official has issued two challans within specific period of time, is bound to be rejected. The oral and documentary evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
18. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Fateh Bahadur is convicted for the offence punishable sunder Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
19. The matter on the quantum of sentence be heard on the next date of the hearing.
20. This judgment contains 8 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the digital signature of the undersigned.
TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 7 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:04:04 +0530
21. Let a copy of this judgment be uploaded on the Official Website of District Courts, Saket forthwith.
22. Announced in open court on 09.10.2025. Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:04:16 +0530 (Kamaldeep Kaur) JMFC, Digital Traffic Court SouthDistrict, Saket, New Delhi/ 09.10.2025 TC No.12260/2025 State Vs. Fateh Bahadur Page No. 8 of 8 (Kamaldeep Kaur/JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)/south/09.10.2025) KAMALDEEP Digitally signed by KAMALDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.09 16:04:11 +0530