Delhi District Court
State vs Aadil on 25 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GUPTA SINGH, MM (TRAFFIC) 02
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Challan No : 1543498
Challan Date : 14.01.2015
Vehicle No : DL 1RN 3321
STATE .......................Complainant
Versus
Aadil ........................Accused
OFFENCE COMPLAINED U/s 66(1)/192A of
THE MOTOR VEHICLE
ACT 1988.
Plea of the Accused: Accused pleaded not guilty
Date of institution of the Case: 15.01.2015
Date on which order was reserved: 26.06.2015
Date of decision: 25.07.2015
Final Order : Accused is acquitted of offence alleged u/s 66(1)/192A of
MV Act.
JUDGMENT
1. Present complaint in question was filed by ASI Kanwar Lal, Enforcement Branch, Transport Department on 15.01.2015 at 2:10 pm against accused Adil for offending TSR no. DL1RN3321. Complaint / Challan was issued as per order of DO against the Helpline cell, Traffic Challan no. 826780 dated 05.10.2013 for refusal/ overcharging/ misbehaviour with Bhavna at 06:27 pm at Lodhi road to Krishna Nagar. 1 State vs Aadil
2. Cognizance was taken on 15.01.2015 and delay in filing the challan was condoned. Accused was present in court and he wished to contest the challan. At this stage accused did not challange the condonation of delay in filing complaint. Offence being bailable accused was released on bail.
3. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C was framed on 29.01.2015 and was explained to accused in vernacular to which he pleads not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined two witnesses i.e PW 1 ASI Kanwar and PW2 Ms. Bhawna Saini. PW1 proved on record Ex PW1/A which is formal request made by the accused.
5. PW 1 deposed that accused had refused Ms. Bhawna to go from Lodhi road to Krishna Nagar on 05.10.2013 at 06:27 pm. Ms. Bhawna made a complaint on helpline number. Notice was given to accused by helpline cell. Accused filed a formal request for issue of present court challan. Complainant had complaint about refusal/ overcharging and misbehaviour. He is not aware if notice was ever sent to the accused. He concedes that notice for complaint in year 2013 was never received by the accused and court challan was made in year 2014.
6. PW2 Ms. Bhawna deposed that on 05.10.2013 at 6:30 pm auto driver of offending vehicle refused to go from Lodhi road to Krishna Nagar. She had asked 56 auto drivers to go to Krishna Nagar. Accused 2 State vs Aadil refused to go and told her to complaint anywhere she wishes. She was with her two children. She stated in her cross examination that accused did not inform her that he was going back home. She only complained about refusal not about overcharging and misbehaviour.
7. Accused appeared habitually late in court on the day Ms. Bhawna was examined. His counsel examined the witness and submitted that identity of the accused would not be disputed.
8. Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence against him were explained to him in his vernacular language. He submits that he did not refuse to Ms. Bhawna. He was not aware about the complaint. Same was informed to him when he went for fitness and asked for clearance from STA. Challan was issued on that day.
9. Arguments were advanced on behalf of state by Ld. APP to the effect that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accused had refused the passenger and thereby has committed permit violation.
10. Per Contra, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that notice of the complaint was never given to the accused neither was the same ever received. Complaint is for refusal / overcharging and misbehaviour. However, complainant has only complained about refusal. Complainant did not identify the accused in court. Prosecution has failed to examine helpline incharge Sh. Afsar Ali. Moreover, complaint is time 3 State vs Aadil barred. Present challan was only issued when accused went to get clearance for fitness.
11. I have heard the state and ld. counsel for the accused and have perused the material on record carefully.
12. Complaint was made to helpline cell, Transport Department, NCT of Delhi on 05.10.2013 at 6:27 pm by Ms. Bhawna for refusal / overcharging / misbehaviour. Complaint no. is 826780. Notice of the complaint was never issued to the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle. Notice as attached with present challan which is dated 12.01.2015. There is no evidence on record to show that notice was ever issued to the accued. Delay was condoned in presence of the accused and he did not take any objection at that time. Same could not be taken at this stage.
13. Court cannot overlook the fact that accused was never informed about the complaint, neither did helpline cell, Incharge was ever examined by prosecution to prove the complaint made by Ms. Bhawna. STA has adopted the procedure wherein owner or driver of the commercial vehicle is taken off guard by helpline complaints after one or more than one year at the time of the fitness. These challans are never sent to the court in time and are sent only when formal request for court challan is made. Such system in my considered opinion is causing great injustice to accused and also to complainant. 4 State vs Aadil
14. Coming to the present complaint. Helpline cell complaint is not proved by the prosecution neither is it clear whether any notice was ever given to accused or not. PW1 has not received the complaint neither did he issue the complaint.
15. In light of these facts and circumstances prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused is acquittedof offence alleged u/s 66(1)/192A of MV Act.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Dated: 25.07.2015 Neha Gupta Singh MM02 Traffic, South East Saket Courts, New Delhi 5 State vs Aadil