Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Down By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In M.C. ... vs . Union Of India In Writ on 15 April, 2014

     In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate 
            (Traffic), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.

In the matter of :
Vehicle No.  : DL­1LM­2740
Challan No. : 277075
Circle          :  MRC
U/S.          :  66/192A, 56/192 & CMVR 138(3)/177 of M.V. Act, 1988. 

State

Versus

Vikram Singh
S/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o S­134/91, Harijan Camp, 
Mehar Chand Market, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi­110003.

Date of Filing the Challan                    :22.11.2012
Arguments Heard on                            :25.03.2014
Date of Judgment                              :15.04.2014
Plea of the accused                           :Not Guilty 
Final Order                                   :Acquittal

Present:          Ld. APP for the State
                  Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh.V.K. Pandey. 

J U D G M E N T

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present challan filed by the prosecution under Section 66/192A, 56/192 & CMVR 138(3)/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act). The brief fact of the case as per prosecution are that on 21.11.2012 at about 11.45 am the accused Vikram Singh was driving one vehicle (LGV) bearing No. DL­1LM­2740 at M.B. Road Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 1 of 23 SDM office while coming from Khanpur side and going towards Saket Metro Station. It is the case of prosecution that the accused Vikram Singh was driving the abovementioned vehicle in first lane of the road alongwith the central verge and overtook another commercial four­wheeled motorised vehicle bearing No.DL­1LJ­5086 which was also in running condition. As per prosecution by doing so, the accused has committed the violation of permit condition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.13029 of 1985. It is further alleged against the accused that he was also not wearing seat belt at that time and when the challaning officer asked him to produce valid fitness certificate of the vehicle, he could not produce the same. Therefore, the accused was challaned for the abovementioned violations vide challan bearing No.277075 which is Ex.PW­1/A. The offending vehicle was also impounded U/s 207 of M.V. Act and O.S.S. Form was also issued to the accused which is Ex.PW­1/B.

2. Since the offences were bailable, the accused/driver was admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/­. The offending vehicle was also released on superdari on furnishing of Superdarinama in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the satisfaction of ACP of the concerned traffic circle.

3. Notice of accusation was served upon the accused/driver U/s 251 CrPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses namely PW1 HC Amar Chand, No.4146T and PW2 ASI Satender, No.2066T, and also proved the challan which is Ex.PW­1/A. Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 2 of 23 PW1 HC Amar Chand in his examination­in­chief deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 21.11.2012 he alongwith PW2 was on vehicle checking duty near DC office, M.B. Road, Saket. At about 11.45 am the offending vehicle came from Khanpur side and it was going towards Saket. It was coming in first lane of the road alongwith central verge and it also overtook one vehicle bearing No.DL­1LG­5086 which was also in running condition. After noticing the above incident, they stopped the offending vehicle which was driven by the accused Vikram Singh and at that time the accused driver was not wearing seat belt. Thereafter, PW2 demanded the documents of the vehicle from the accused but the accused could not produce fitness certificate of the vehicle. Therefore, PW2 issued the present challan which is Ex.PW­1/A against the accused and the vehicle was impounded U/s 207 of M.V.Act and was deposited at Lado Sarai pit.

In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that he observed the commission of offence from a distance of 20 metres. The accused driver was coming from Khanpur side and he was overtaking another Light Goods Vehicle bearing No. DL­1LG­5086. Before overtaking the said vehicle, the accused driver was driving the offending vehicle in third lane but gradually he entered the first lane of the road while overtaking the abovementioned vehicle. PW1 further deposed that 2 or 3 passengers were present inside the offending vehicle when the same was stopped by them. PW1 also deposed that he did not signed on the challan as a witness. However, he negated that suggestion that he was not present at the spot.

In his examination­in­chief, PW2 ASI Satender deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 21.11.2012 while performing their duties near DC office M.B. Road, Saket. at about 11.45 am he and PW1 HC Amar Chand who was present there alongwith him noticed that one vehicle bearing No.DL­1LM­2740 Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 3 of 23 which was coming from Khanpur side and going towards Mehrauli was coming in first lane of the road alongwith central verge and it overtook one vehicle bearing No.DL­1LG­5086 which was in running condition. Thereafter, they stopped the offending vehicle which was driven by the accused Vikram Singh and asked him to produce the documents of the vehicle. When they stopped the offending vehicle, the accused driver was not wearing seat belt. The accused driver also could not produce valid fitness certificate of the vehicle. Thereafter, PW2 issued the present challan against the accused which is Ex.PW­1/A bearing his signature at point A and also impounded the offending vehicle U/s 207 of M.V. Act.

In his cross examination, PW2 deposed that he witnessed the commission of offence/violation from a distance of about 15­20 metres. The offending vehicle was coming, overtaking many private vehicle which were four­ wheeled motorised vehicle. He also overtook one Light Goods Vehicle bearing No.DL­1LG­5086. PW2 further deposed that he did not stopped the vehicles which were overtaken by accused since it was the accused who committed violation and not the vehicles which were overtaken by him. He also deposed that even if he could have tried to stop them for the purpose of making them to be a witness, then also it would not have served any purpose as it could have caused a huge traffic jam on the road. PW2 deposed that when he noticed the offending vehicle, it was coming in the first lane of the road and that there are three different lanes provided on the road. PW2 further deposed that there is one cut which is provided approximately 50­60 meters ahead of the place of commission of offence and it is known as IGNOU cut but there is no red light traffic signal provided there. In the end, PW2 negated the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused did not overtook any commercial vehicle and was wrongly challaned.

Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 4 of 23

5. After the completion of Prosecution Evidence, the statement of accused driver U/s 313 CrPC was recorded. During the examination of accused U/s 313 CrPC, the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him and he was given an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him to which he submitted that he accepts the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle on the day of incident at M.B. Road near DC/SDM office. However, he submitted that it is incorrect that he was driving the offending vehicle in first lane of the road and overtook any other commercial vehicle. He submitted that the place where the violation is alleged to be committed by him is a very narrow and congested road and it is not possible to overtake any vehicle on that road. He also refuted the allegation of prosecution that he was without wearing seat belt or that he did not produce the fitness certificate of the vehicle. In the end, accused Vikram Singh submitted that he has been falsely challaned in the present case since he did not fulfill the illegal demand of challaning officer for gratification.

6. After examination of accused/driver U/s 313 CrPC, he submitted that he wish to lead Defence Evidence and in his support, he examined one witness DW1 Ram Manorath Verma.

In his examination­in­chief, DW1 Sh. Ram Manorath Verma deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 21.11.2012 at about 11.30­12.00 p.m. he was going towards Okhla alongwith the accused driver in the offending vehicle. It was stopped near SDM office, Saket at U­turn (M.B. Road ) by traffic police. The vehicle was plying in proper lane of the road and it did not overtook any other vehicle. DW1 further deposed that the accused was wrongly challaned and his vehicle was illegally impounded only because the traffic police/challaning Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 5 of 23 officials were demanding money from the accused driver which he refused to pay.

In his cross­examination, DW­1 deposed that it is correct that the traffic police signalled us to stop the vehicle and, accordingly, the accused driver stopped the same on left side of the road. DW1 deposed that Vikram Singh told him that the traffic police is issuing a challan against him for driving the offending vehicle in first lane of the road and for overtaking other vehicles. However, since the vehicle was not in first lane of the road nor did it overtook any vehicle, therefore, DW1 came to know that traffic police is wrongly challaning Vikram Singh. DW1 further deposed that the challaning officer demanded bribe from the Vikram Singh and when he refused to pay the same, they issued the present challan against him.

7. After the completion of defence evidence, the matter was fixed for hearing of final arguments.

8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel at length and have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence and after carefully perusing the same, I am giving my finding as per below:

In the present challan, the accused was challaned for the violations of Section 66/192A, 56/192 & CMVR 138(3)/177 of M.V. Act,1988.
Sec. 66 of The Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 provides that:
Necessity for permits - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 6 of 23 Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for on in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.
(2) The Holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi­trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime­mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi­trailor] (3) The provisions of sub­section (1) shall not apply ­
(a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;

               (b)      to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority 



Vehicle No.  : DL­1LM­2740                                            7 of 23
                    or by a person acting under contract with a local
authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes;
(c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; 
            (d)    to any transport vehicle used solely for the 

                   conveyance of corpses and the mourners 

                   accompanying the corpses;

            (e)    to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled 

                   vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled 

                    vehicle to a place of safety;

            (f)    to any transport vehicle used for any other public 

                   purpose as may be prescribed by the State 

                   Government in this behalf;

            (g)    to any transport vehicle used by person who
manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;
(j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 8 of 23 that Sate or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods;
(k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.
(m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination;
(n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify;
(o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire­ purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or
(p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub­section (3), sub­ section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 9 of 23 section 96 so prescribes apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine person excluding the driver.

The penalty for violation of Section 66 is provided in Section 192A.

Sec.192A of The Motor Vehicle Act,1988 provides that :

Using vehicle without permit - (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub­section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury or for the transport of materials for repair or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose:
Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.
Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 10 of 23 (3) The court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub­section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.

It is further pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme court in M.C Mehta V. U.O.I (writ petition 13029 of 1985) laid down certain guidelines and passed certain directions for the control and regulation of traffic in NCR and NCT, Delhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India and Ors. 1998 JCC (SC) 25 has laid down the following directions for transport vehicles operating within the jurisdiction of Delhi :­

(a) No heavy and medium transport vehicles and light goods vehicles being four wheelers would be permitted to operate on the roads of NCR and NCT, Delhi unless they are fitted with suitable speed control devices to ensure that they do not exceed the speed limit of 40 KMPH. This will not apply to transport vehicles operating on Interstate permits and national goods permits. Such exempted vehicles would, however, be confined to such routes and such timings during day and night as the police/transport authorities may Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 11 of 23 publish. It is made clear that no vehicle would be permitted on roads or during the times other than aforesaid time without a speed control device.

(b) Transport vehicles are not permitted to overtake any other four wheel motorized vehicle.

(c) Wherever it exists, buses shall be confined to the bus lane.

(d) Buses halt only at bus stops designated for the purpose and within the marked area.

(e) Any breach of the aforesaid directions by any person would, apart from entailing other legal consequences, be dealt with as contravention of the condition of the permit which could entail suspension/cancellation of the permit and impounding of the vehicle.

(f) No transport vehicle shall ply unless it carries a proper authorization card, containing the name, photograph and other such particulars of the driver, issued by the State Transport Authority authorizing such driver to drive the vehicle. The authorization card shall be displayed in the vehicle at a conspicuous place.

Guideline (b) prohibits overtaking of any other four wheel motorised vehicle and (e) makes the same a violation of permit condition and in the present case the accused has also been Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 12 of 23 charged with the violation of the above mentioned guideline. Sec. 138(3) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that:

(3) In a motor vehicle, in which seat­belts have been provided under sub­rule (1) or sub­rule (1­A) of rule 125 or rule 125­A, as the case may be, it shall be ensured that the driver, and the person seated in the front seat or the persons occupying front facing rear seats, as the case may be, wear the seat belts while the vehicle is in motion.

The penalty for violation of CMVR 138(3) is provided in Section 177 of M.V. Act.

Sec.177 of The Motor Vehicle Act,1988 provides that :

General provision for punishment of offences - Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.
Sec. 56 of The Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 provides that:
Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles - (1) Subject to the provisions of section 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub­section (2), to the effect Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 13 of 23 that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:
Provided that where the prescribed authority or the "authorized testing station" refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.
(2) The "authorized testing station"referred to in sub­section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub­section (4), certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act. (4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained.

[Provided the no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 14 of 23 technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications.] (5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective be valid throughout India.

The penalty for violation of Section 56 of M.V. Act is provided in Section 192 of M.V. Act.

Sec.192 of The Motor Vehicle Act,1988 provides that :

Using vehicle without registration - (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose:
Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use. 

      (3)     The court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in  



Vehicle No.  : DL­1LM­2740                                          15 of 23
respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub­section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.

It is also important to go through some other important provisions for the better understanding of violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as alleged to be committed by the accused. Therefore, we must understand the meaning of permit, contract carriage permit as well as stage carriage permit, a motor vehicle, a transport vehicle.

Section 2(31) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Permit"

"Permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle;
Section 2(7) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "contract carriage"
"Contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum­
(a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 16 of 23 route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during th journey, and includes­
(i) a maxicab; and
(ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers;

Section 2(4) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "stage carriage"

"Stage carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;
Section 2(28) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Motor Vehicle"
"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 [twenty­five cubic centimetres] Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 17 of 23 Section 2(47) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Transport Vehicle"
"Transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a good carriage, an educational institute bus or a private service vehicle.

9. Thus in order to prove the guilt of the accused and to sustain his conviction the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubts that:

1. The accused committed violation of permit conditions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 13029 of 1985) which amounts to offence U/s 66/192A of M.V. Act Guideline No.1(b):
"that no transport vehicle shall overtake any other four wheel motorised vehicle."

2 . That the offending vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate.

3. That the accused driver was driving the offending vehicle without wearing seat belt.

To prove this, firstly Ld. APP for State has argued before the court that both the prosecution witness namely PW1 HC Amar Chand and PW2 ASI Satender have proved the challan on record and have correctly identified the accused. Both the prosecution witnesses have remained consistent in their testimonies. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out that there are many inconsistencies and loopholes in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 which raises serious doubts as to the veracity of the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused has pointed out the following inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2.

Firstly, he has argued before the court that as per the testimony of Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 18 of 23 both PW1 and PW2, the offending vehicle was coming in first lane of the road alongwith central verge and was overtaking one vehicle bearing No.DL­1LG­5086 which was also in running condition. However, in his cross­examination, PW2 deposed that the offending vehicle was overtaking many other private vehicle but he did not noted down the registration number of those vehicle. On the other hand, PW1 is totally silent about this fact. Both PW1 and PW2 have deposed that they witnessed the commission of offence/violation from a distance of about 20 metres while they were performing their duties near DC office, M.B. Road. However, PW1 could see only one vehicle which was overtaken by the accused driver whereas PW2 witnessed many other vehicles which were also overtaken. It shows a clear contradiction in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. Either PW1 can be believed or only PW2 can be believed in such situation and in both such situations, their testimonies remains uncorroborated.

Secondly, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued before the court that as per the prosecution story the accused driver was plying his vehicle in first lane of the road and was overtaking one another commercial four wheeled motorised vehicle DL­1LG­5086 which was in running condition. However, to utter surprise neither the said vehicle was stopped for the purpose of collecting evidence by making the driver of the said vehicle a witness in the present case, nor did he tried to at least note down the name and address of the driver of the said vehicle so that he could be called in the court to prove the allegations of overtaking levelled against the accused driver.

Thirdly, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued before the court that as per the testimony of PW1 there was no lane marking on the road specifying the three lanes for different category of vehicles. On the other hand, PW2 has deposed in his cross­examination that there were three specific lanes provided on the road.

Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 19 of 23 As per the testimony of PW2 there was no traffic jam on the road at the time of commission of offence. However, he deposed that when he noticed the offending vehicle coming in first lane, he went to stop the same by crossing the road and crossing the third and second lane of the road by directing the vehicles coming in second and third lane to slow down and then he reached to the first lane. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued before the court that this statement of PW2 appears to be highly unbelievable as when he himself deposed that there was no traffic jam on the road and the offending vehicle was coming at a speed of 40 km/hr., the other vehicles which were plying in second and third would also be coming in speed of that level and may be of a higher speed. In such a situation no person of a sound mind would risk his life and enter the road to stop any vehicle particularly a vehicle which is on the far end of the road and plying in first lane. Even if it is believed that PW2 actually cross the road and went to first lane risking his life for stopping the offending vehicle, then it must have caused traffic jam on the road and then again this submission of PW1 would be contradictory to his earlier statement that he did not stop the vehicle which was overtaken i.e vehicle No. DL­1LG­5086 for the reason that it could have caused traffic jam on the road. Thus, the testimony of PW2 is self­contradictory and cannot be relied upon.

Fourthly, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued before the court that no public witness was joined in the present case by the prosecution to provide corroboration to the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses. The accused in his statement U/s 313 CrPC has categorically stated that he was falsely challaned in the present case since he refused to fulfill the illegal demand of gratification by challaning officer. Further, the Defence Witness i.e. Ram Manorath Verma who appeared on behalf of accused driver has also deposed in his testimony that the accused driver was wrongly challaned in the present case since he refused to Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 20 of 23 fulfill the demand of bribe made by the traffic police and that the accused was not driving his vehicle in first lane nor did he overtook any other commercial four wheeled motorised vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of any independent and impartial witness and also in view of the statement of accused U/s 313 CrPC and the testimony of defence witness, the uncorroborated testimonies of both the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon.

Lastly, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued before the court that with respect to allegation that the accused was not wearing seat belt also stands not proved as the testimony of both the prosecution remains uncorroborated. With respect to the allegation that the offending vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate, the same also needs no discussion as the accused has already produced valid fitness certificate of the vehicle in court and a copy of the same is also placed on record and is exhibited as DW1/A. In the end, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that since the prosecution could not prove any allegation against the accused, therefore, he must be acquitted of all the baseless and false charges levelled against him.

On the other hand, the Ld. APP for the State has argued before the court that the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that since no public witness has been joined in the present case, therefore, the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon is without any substance. Both the prosecution witnesses have totally corroborated each other in their testimonies and mere absence of any independent public witness does not itself throw away the case of prosecution.

10. After hearing the submission of both the Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel, I finds merits in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. Both the prosecution witnesses are quite contradictory in their Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 21 of 23 testimonies with respect to many facts pertaining to the present case. They are contradictory with respect to the position of the road where the alleged violations occurred. They are also contradictory with respect to the number of vehicles which were overtaken by the accused driver. Absence of any public witness as well as no efforts for recording registration numbers of vehicles which were overtaken or for taking the name and address of their driver raises some suspicion as to the veracity of the prosecution story. As per the testimony of prosecution witness PW1, there were two passengers sitting inside the offending vehicle but even they were also not made a witness in the present case. It is a rule of prudence that when the independent public witnesses are available at the spot they must be joined as public witnesses. In the case of non­joining of public witnesses even when they were available and no plausible explanation coming forth from the prosecution for the same, the case of the prosecution should be seen with reasonable circumspection as it would be unsafe to believe the story of prosecution in absence of the independent public witnesses. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanspal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, 1999, Cr.L.J 1a. Moreover, the statement of PW2 that he did not stop the other vehicles since it could have caused a traffic jam on the road and his statement that there was smooth traffic on the road and he approached the offending vehicle by crossing the road also is also not convincing and appears to be self contradictory.

Therefore, the prosecution have failed to prove that the accused was plying his vehicle in first lane of the road and was overtaking another commercial four wheeled motorised vehicle bearing No.DL­1LG­5086.

Further, with respect to the allegation that the offending vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate, there needs no deliberation as the accused has Vehicle No. : DL­1LM­2740 22 of 23 already produced valid fitness certificate in the court and a copy thereof is placed on record and exhibited as DW­1/A. Lastly, with respect to the allegation that the accused was without wearing seat belt, though both the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused driver was without seat belt when they stopped the vehicle,however, since their testimonies remains uncorroborated, the said allegation also stands not proved.

10. Hence, after considering all the material on record, testimonies of both the prosecution witnesses and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden beyond all doubts ,and, therefore, the accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him U/s 66/192, 56/192 & CMVR 138(3)/177 of M.V. Act 1988 as the same could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused. Pronounced in the open court. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in the open court                                 (Balwinder Singh)
on 15th day of April, 2014                                  Metropolitan Magistrate,
                                                            Traffic, South District,
                                                            Saket, New Delhi.




Vehicle No.  : DL­1LM­2740                                         23 of 23