Delhi District Court
State vs . Javed on 9 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GUPTA SINGH, MM (TRAFFIC) 02
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Challan No : 1228-01354/55
Challan Date : 30.04.2014
Vehicle No. : DL 2W 0491
STATE .......................Complainant
Versus
Javed ........................Accused
OFFENCE COMPLAINED U/s DMVR 7/177, RRR 32/177 and
66(1)/192A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988.
Plea of the Accused: Accused pleaded not guilty.
Date of institution of the Case: 01.05.2014
Date on which order was reserved: 26.02.2015
Date of decision: 09.03.2015
Final Order : Both accused are accordingly acquitted of the
offence under section DMVR 7/177, RRR 32/177
and 66(1)/192A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988.
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story leading to the institution of complaint by ZO SVC is that on 30.04.2014 at 10.30 am accused was driving Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W0491 from CRRI to Badarpur Border. The vehicle was intercepted near Badarpur Border for driver was driving the vehicle without uniform on extended route on Badarpur border. Actual route for the vehicle is only upto Badarpur border. Driver of the vehicle could not produce valid Badge and RC on checking. Challan was made u/s DMVR 7/177, RRR 32/177, 66(1)/192A of MV Act against the driver and Challan u/s RRR 32/177, 1 State vs. Javed 66(1)/192A of MV Act was made against the owner by the challaning officer. Vehicle was impounded u/s 207 MV Act.
2. Cognizance was taken of the offence committed and accused was released on bail on 01.05.2014. Vehicle was released on superdari to its rightful owner.
3. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C was issued on 13.08.2014 to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined two witnesses i.e. PW 1 Constable Sunil and ASI Manohar Lal. PW 1 proved on record driver challan as Ex.PW1/A, Owner's Challan Ex PW1/B and OSS form Ex PW1/C.
5. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence against them were explained to them in their vernacular language. Accused submitted that accused was not driving towards Badarpur border. He was taking U turn from there. Accused does not have a valid Badge. Accused was coming after getting the vehicle repaired. Accused owner deposed as DW. He proved on record valid DL Ex DW1/A, Robkar Ex DW1/B, Insurance Ex DW1/C, Fitness Ex DW1/D and repairing bill dated 30.04.2014 Ex DW1/E of the offending vehicle.
6. PW 1 deposed that on 01.05.2014 near Jaitpur mod, vehicle was impounded. Accused driver was plying without uniform and found to be violating the permissible route. He was found to be plying 2 State vs. Javed near Badarpur border. Accused was not able to produce valid RC and Badge at the spot.
7. PW 2 deposed that on 30.04.2014 accused was standing at Badarpur border and calling for passengers. One passenger was sitting in the offending vehicle. Accused driver was without uniform. On checking he was found to be without PSV Badge and valid RC of the vehicle. He conceded in his cross examination that he did not noted down the name and address of the passenger. No public witnesses were joined during the challan.
8. Ld. APP advanced the arguments on behalf of the state. He submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused should be convicted for the alleged offences. It is not necessary to cite public witnesses when the testimony of two official witnesses corroborates each other.
9. The arguments were advanced on behalf of the accused by the Ld. Counsel. It is submitted on behalf of the ld. Counsel for the accused that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. PW1 does not remember the date of the offence correctly. PW1 has stated that there was one helper with the accused in the vehicle. However, PW2 has stated that one passenger was present in the vehicle. PW2 has stated in his examination that offending vehicle was standing and calling for passengers. However, PW1 has not mentioned about such fact. He has stated that vehicle was being driven by the accused. It is further submitted that no Public Witness 3 State vs. Javed was joined despite availability. Vehicle was returning after being repaired.
10. I have heard the counsel of accused and I have heard the state and have perused the material on record carefully.
11. Present fact and circumstances fall under exception to section 66.1 given under section 66(3)(p) MV Act. Valid Badge is not needed when vehicle is returning after getting repaired.
12. Accused has proved on record valid RC and also repairing bill for date of the incident. Same were not rebuted by the prosecution. Contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cast shadow of doubt on prosecution story. Prosecution has not proved this case beyond reasonable doubts. PW 1 was not able to recollect the date of the incident and according to him vehicle was being driven at Badarpur border without any passenger. However, PW2 has stated that accused was calling for passengers at Badarpur border and there was one passenger sitting in the vehicle. No independent witness was joined during the investigation.
13. In light of above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution is not able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that accused has raised valid defense u/s 66(3)
(p). Prosecution was not able to rebut the defense of the accused for they have not proved cogently on record that there were passengers present in the vehicle at the time of the incident. 4 State vs. Javed
14. Both accused are accordingly acquitted of the offence under section DMVR 7/177, RRR 32/177 and 66(1)/192A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Dated: 09.03.2015 Neha Gupta Singh MM-02 Traffic, South East Saket Courts, New Delhi 5 State vs. Javed