Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Sagar Yadav on 5 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. NANDINI SHARMA:
DIGITAL TRAFFIC COURT, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
TC 175/2024
STATE Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV
E-challan Details: DL126640240081836
Vehicle No. DL1LAA2945
1 CNR Number : DLET020009782024
2 Name of the accused, parentage & residential address : Ram Sagar Yadav, S/o
Siya Ram Yadav R/o
New Lahore, Shastri
Nagar, Geeta Colony,
Delhi.
3 Offence complained of or proved : 115/194(1) Motor
Vehicles Act 1988
4 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5 Final Judgment : Acquitted
6 Date of Judgment : 05.07.2024
Date of Institution : 23.01.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 28.06.2024
Date of Pronouncement Judgment : 05.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Judgment, this court shall dispose off challan bearing TC No. 175/2024, Challan No. DL126640240104081836 of vehicle Bearing Registration No. DL1LAA2945 dt. 04.01.2024 against Ram Sagar Yadav, U/s 115/194(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V.Act").
Brief facts:
2. It is alleged against the accused that on 04.01.2024 at 08:00, one LGV bearing registration number DL1LAA2945 was coming from the side of Akshardham and going towards Noida. It is alleged that from 07:00 Am to 11:00 AM, entry of such vehicles is Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA TC No. 175/2024 SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05 State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV 16:35:25 +0530 (Nandini Sharma) JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) (East)/KKD Courts 05.07.2024 not allowed and the same is the "NO ENTRY" time. Since, there was violation of restriciton of time, the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 115/194(1) M.V. Act 1988.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that cognizance of the offence had already been taken by Virtual Traffic Court and a fine was proposed 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 Ram Sagar Yadav entered his first appearance on 02.05.2024.
5. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused on 02.05.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was the defence of the accused that he has been falsely implicated and he is inncoent as he had a valid permission at that time to drive his vehicle in "NO ENTRY" timings. Further, there is also a circular which extended the permission till 31.01.2024. Accused also shared the copy of permission and the circular on the official email id of this court.
6. Summons were issued to SI Dinesh Singh (No. 4256-D, 28890593) the challaning officer and SI Talevar (484/T) for prosecution evidence in the present case. PW-1 SI Dinesh Singh, No. 4256-D, was examined by the prosecution. He testified that on the date of the offence, he was posted as SI in Mayur Vihar Circle and on that date, he along with SI Talevar were on prosecution duty at Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Carriageway from Akshardham to Noida. He further testified that at about 08:00 AM, they found one LGV bearing no. DL1LAA2945 which was coming from the side of Akshardham and going towards Noida. He also stated that from 07:00 AM to 11:00 AM, Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA TC No. 175/2024 SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05 State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV 16:35:31 +0530 (Nandini Sharma) JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) (East)/KKD Courts 05.07.2024 entry of such vehicles is not allowed and the same is the "NO ENTRY" time. Since, it was a violation of restriction of time, he proceeded to impose a challan on the accused driver namely Ram Sagar Yadav through E-challan machine. The driver gave his mobile number which was recorded by him. He further testified that through the E-challan machine, the owner of the vehicle was revealed to be one Atul Sawhney and a separate challan was imposed on the owner. The challan slips of both the cases were given to the violator/driver. A copy of challan slip was also generated through e-challan machine and is annexed with the file as Ex. PW-1/A bearing the signature of the challaning officer at point A and signature of the violator at point C. On cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the owner of the vehicle Atul Sawhney was not present at the spot at the time of challan. He also testified that signature of Atul Sawhney was not taken on the challan and that the challan was received by the driver of the offending vehicle. In this cross-
examination, PW-1 denied having been informed about possession of permit in respect of the said vehicle. He further testified that the permit was not pasted on the windshield of the vehicle.
Prosecution has also examined PW-2 Retd. SI Talevar, who was also on the prosecution duty at the place of challan along with PW-1. PW-2 has also testified same as PW-1. Prosecution evidence was then closed on 24.05.2024.
7. On examination U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. held on 31.05.2024, the accused denied the allegations against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further stated that the permission certificate was affixed on the front mirror of his LGV. The Zonal Officer did not take a picture of his original permission certificate. He further submitted that the authorities already had the letter that the validity of permission certificate has been extended till 31.01.2024. Copy of the extension was also affixed on the front mirror of his LGV. However, no picture of the same was captured by the Zonal Officer. Accused further submitted that he does not wish to lead DE. DE was closed on 31.05.2024 and final arguments were heard.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05
TC No. 175/2024 16:35:37
State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV +0530
(Nandini Sharma)
JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)
(East)/KKD Courts
05.07.2024
8. Ld. APP on behalf of the State has argued that two witnesses of Delhi Traffic Police have testifed to support the case of the prosecution. Both the witnesses have given the same account of offence and there is no reason to doubt their testimony. The accused driver entered the "NO ENTRY ZONE" and therefore, is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 115/194(1) of M.V. Act.
9. Accused in his defence argued that permission certificate was affixed on the front mirror of LGV, however, the picture of the same was not taken by the challaning officer and that he has not committed any offence.
Appreciation of Evidence led before the Court:
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties as well as the material placed on record before this court.
11. Before delving into the facts placed before this court, it is necessary to reiterate the legal provisions. Section 115/194(1) of the M.V. Act states as follows:
"115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles. - The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places:
Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA TC No. 175/2024 SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05
State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV 16:35:44
+0530
(Nandini Sharma)
JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)
(East)/KKD Courts
05.07.2024
shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction..."
"194(1). Whoever drivers a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be drives in contravention of the provisions of section 113 or section 114 or section 115 shall be punishable with fine of twenty thousand rupees and an additional amount of two thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load.
Provided that such motor vehicle shall not be allowed to move before such excess load is removed or is caused or allowed to be removed by the person in control of such motor vehicle.
12. It is trite law that to impose a criminal liablity on a person, the prosecution must establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if the defence is successful in casting a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's story, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Coming to the present challan, the prosecution has alleged against the accused that he was driving his vehicle in NO ENTRY time and there was a violation of restriction of time punishable u/s 115/194(1) M.V. Act. Prosecution has examined two witnesses PW-1 challaning officer and PW-2 the witness to prove the prosecution story. The challaning officer has stated that he imposed the challan on the driver namely Ram Sagar Yadav because he was driving the vehicle in NO ENTRY time as there is a restriction of time 07:00 AM to 11:00 AM on entry of vehicles from the side of Akshardham to Noida .
It is pertinent to note that neither the challaning officer nor the SI on prosecution duty took a picture of the windshield/mirror of the LGV where the permission certificate as per the testimony of the accused, was stuck. The accused produced the original permission certificate as well as the extended permission in this court and also sent a copy to the mail id of this court. The same has been verified by the Nodal Officer of Delhi Traffic Police attached to this court. The prosecution witnesses did not have any explanation as to why the photograph was not taken. There is no independent Digitally signed by NANDINI NANDINI SHARMA TC No. 175/2024 SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05 State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV 16:35:51 (Nandini Sharma) +0530 JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) (East)/KKD Courts 05.07.2024 witness in this case. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as neither there is any independent documentry evidence nor oral evidence in support of the challan. The prosecution has only examined the challaning officers who cannot be said to be independent witnesses.
13. The accused in his defence has emphasized on the fact that he had affixed the permission certificate on the front mirror of the LGV and still no picture was taken. Therefore, the accused has raised a doubt in the prosecution story as there were two challaning officers of Delhi Traffic Police present at the spot and none of them proceeded to take any documentary evidence.
14. From perusal of the record, arguments advanced and submissions made, it is noteworthy that in absence of any oral or documentary evidence, any independent witness to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution story cannot be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The owner of the offending vehicle in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, has not denied the presence of his driver at the place of offence, but he has produced documentary evidence supporting the fact that he did not violate any restriction of time. Further, the accused has raised doubts on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses by alleging that they did not take picture of the front mirror where the certificate was affixed. The accused through the owner of the offending vehicle, has also adduced evidence to support his case. The original certificate and the extended permission certificate was produced for the perusal of the court. Same has been verified. The accused has been successful in raising doubts in the prosecution story to his benefit. Thus, it can be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05
TC No. 175/2024 16:35:56
State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV +0530
(Nandini Sharma)
JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)
(East)/KKD Courts
05.07.2024
Conclusion:
15. In the light of these circumstances, the accused Ram Sagar Yadav in the present case stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 115/194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
16. This judgment contains 7 pages. This judgment is pronounced in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
17. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma Courts forthwith.
Announced in open court on 05.07.2024.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI
NANDINI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.05
TC No. 175/2024 16:36:01
+0530
State Vs. RAM SAGAR YADAV
(Nandini Sharma)
JMFC (Digital Traffic Court)
(East)/KKD Courts
05.07.2024