Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhagwan Dass on 29 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAHIMA RAI : MM TRAFFIC
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
STATE Vs. BHAGWAN DASS
(KAMLA MARKET CIRCLE)
1. Challan No. : 285960
2. Vehicle No. : DL1RN 5690
3. Date of Commission of offence : 16.11.2013
4. Name of complainant : SI Tej Pal Singh
5. Name of accused : Bhagwan Dass
S/o Late Sh. Nathu Singh
R/o Gali no.6, Wazirabad Village,
Delhi-84.
6. Offence complained of : U/s.11.9/177 &
66.1/192-A M.V. Act.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial
8. The date of reserving the order : 16.10.2014
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date of such Order : 29.11.2014
DL 1RN 5690 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass page 1 / 5
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The brief facts as mentioned by the prosecution in the challan can be summarized as under:
The case of the prosecution is that the accused on 16.11.2013 at about 11.55 Hrs, was driving his TSR bearing No. DL1Rn 5690. At that time he refused to take W/Ct. Sumita to Najafgarh from Kamla Market. By doing so, he committed an offence punishable u/s DMVR 11.9/177 of M.V. Act R/w section 66.1/192-A of M.V. Act and within the cognizance of this court.
2. The accused appeared before the court and notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused on 20.01.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the same.
3. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses, PW-1 challaning officer SI Tej Pal Singh, PW-2 W/Ct. Sumita and PW3 Ct. Prem Kumar. All the PW's have been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW-1 challaning officer, SI Tej Pal Singh submits in his examination in chief that on 16.11.2013, he was posted at Kamla Market Circle along with Ct. Prem. W/Ct. Sumita, who was deployed as decoy customer, was also standing about 20-25 steps behind him. At around 11.55 AM, W/Ct. Sumita shouted and called him and later brought the TSR bearing No. DL1RN 5690 to him. He asked the auto driver to produce the papers, however, he did not produce the papers. Accordingly, he prepared a challan u/s DMVR 11.9/177 of M.V. Act R/w section 66.1/192-A of M.V. Act which is Ex.PW-1/A which bears his signature at point A. Witness correctly identified the accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there was no written circular or direction regarding the deployment of decoy customer. He also DL 1RN 5690 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass page 2 / 5 deposed that no public witness made the witness despite his efforts and no written notice was given to any passersby. He also deposed that W/Ct. Sumita was not in uniform.
5. PW2 W/Ct. Sumita submits in her examination in chief that on 16.11.2013,at around 11.55 AM, she stopped one TSR bearing no. DL1RN 5690 and asked the accused driver to go to Najafgarh but the driver refused by saying that Najafgarh is very far and he would not get any passenger from there. She then sat in the TSR and took it to the PW1 ZO who was nearby. PW1 ZO accordingly challaned the accused driver vide Ex. PW-1/A which bears her signature at point B as a witness. Witness correctly identified the accused. In her cross-examination, she deposed that there was a direction in the office for trapping the refusal challans and she was on duty from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm in the entire Kamla Market Circle on the day of challan. Further that she did not receive any intimation regarding the decoy customer on 16.11.2013. She deposed that she signed the Ex.PW1/A without reading its contents. She denied the suggestion that Ct. Prem was not on duty on the day of challan and therefore, his signature was not present on the challan.
6. PW3 Ct. Prem Kumar submits in his examination in chief that on 16.11.2013, he was posted at point Kamla Market round. Around 11.00 AM, he received a call from W/Ct. Sumita, who was at Minto Road, that driver of TSR bearing no. DL1RN 5690 has refused to take her to Najafgarh side. He further deposed that driver was refusing to come to the ZO who was at Kamla Market round about, thereafter, PW3 went to Minto Road to get the accused driver to the ZO. It is further deposed that PW3 along with PW2 took the accused driver to the ZO PW1 and that PW1 ZO challaned the accused driver for refusal vide Ex. PW-1/A. Witness correctly identified the accused. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that W/Ct. Sumita was not on duty on 16.11.2013 and due to this reason her name is not mentioned in the duty roaster dated 16.11.2013. He deposed that name of W/Ct. Sumita has been mentioned in daily chittha and the duty roaster is separate from daily chittha. He further deposed that accused driver did not refuse to any one DL 1RN 5690 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass page 3 / 5 in front of him.
7. This is all, as far as prosecution evidence is concerned in this matter.
8. The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w section 281 Cr.P.C on 15.09.2014 in which he denied all the incriminatory evidence put to him and stated to have been falsely implicated in this challan. The accused was not interested to lead defense evidence.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by Ld. defense counsel and by Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the Challaning officer has prepared a false and fabricated challan as the court date mentioned is before the date of challan. Also the signature of witness Ct. Prem Kumar are not there on the challan. Further no member of public has been made a witness and no direction by the higher authorities for conducting refusal drives has been put on record by the prosecution. The defense has taken the plea that Ct. Sumita when asked to pay the legal fare, refused and instead challaned the accused falsely. Per Contra Ld. APP has stated that the mistake in date is only of clerical nature an it, therefore, does not effect the veracity of the challan. Further, there is no prior animosity between the PWs and the accused for them to depose falsely.
10. I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case. The present challan is for refusal without any sufficient cause u/s 11.9 DMVR which leads to permit violation u/s 66.1/192-A M .V. Act. Both the testimonies of PW1 & PW3 clearly shows that they were not present at the spot of refusal, thus are not an eye witness to the offence of the act of refusal. Further, the present challan was made under a decoy customer drive, however, no permission from the concerned authority regarding conducting such decoy customer drive has been put on record. Prosecution has not been able to prove that PW2 W/Ct. Sumita was actually deployed as decoy customer on the date and time of present challan. The duty DL 1RN 5690 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass page 4 / 5 roaster put on record is only a computer print-out and no copy of DD entry showing her to be on refusal / decoy customer duty is put on record. In such drives where the complainant is the prosecutor himself, the need of independent member of public as witness gains importance, however, no member of public is made a witness in the present challan. Thus, the manner in which the present challan is made raises a doubt regarding its legality and veracity.
11. Hence, in view of above discussion and evidence available on record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence U/s DMVR 11.9/177 of M.V. Act R/w section 66(1)/192-A of the Act for permit violation.
Announced in the open court (MAHIMA RAI)
dated 29th November, 2014. MM/TRAFFIC/THC
DELHI/29.11.2014
DL 1RN 5690 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass page 5 / 5