Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Anubhav Singh vs The State on 14 August, 2018

          IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
              ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­04 
        & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH EAST: SAKET
                    COURTS: NEW DELHI

CA No. 120 of 2018

Anubhav Singh
S/o Sh. Naresh Chandra
R/o F­64/2, Flat No. 37,
Sector­40, Noida, UP                                .....Appellant.
 
      Versus

The State
( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)                            ......Respondent

Instituted on :.14.03.2018 
Argued on    :  07.08.2018
Decided on  :  14.08.2018



JUDGMENT:

1 The   appellant   has   impugned   the   order   dated 08.03.2018   vide   which   he   has   been   convicted   u/s   129/177, 32/177, 146/196, 185 & 115/190 (2) MV Act and sentenced to Anubhav Singh Vs. State - CA No. 120 of 2018 1 of 5 undergo SI for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.2,200/­.  He is let off after   due   admonition   (as   owner)   for   the   offence   u/s   146/196, 32/177 & 115/190 (2) MV Act.

2 The appeal is filed on the grounds that alcohmeter is subject   to   Calibration   Report   whereby   any   instrument   gets independent   lab   certificate   for   its   proper   functioning.   The calibration report is not furnished by the prosecution. He was not got medically examined by the police officials as he has refused to sign the challan. There is no public witness. 3 He has not pleaded guilty and contested the case. His photograph was not taken from the machine at the time of the alleged test. The requirements of Section 185 MV Act were not complied with. The breath analysis report is unreliable. Section 203 MV  Act   are  not  complied  with.   The  Principles  of natural justice are not complied. Hence, this appeal.  4 Notice of the appeal is given to the prosecution.  Anubhav Singh Vs. State - CA No. 120 of 2018 2 of 5 5 The  facts  of the case are like this. On 14.08.2017 at 12:31 pm from Kalandi Kunj Border to Apollo at Road No. 13A, BTW, Red Light appellant was riding the scooty bearing No. UP­ 14AR­0014   which  was  stopped  by  traffic   police   officials.   The appellant   was   driving   the   scooty   without   any   helmet.   The appellant has failed to produce the RC. The breath analysis test was conducted with the help of alchometer. 158 mg/ 100 ml of alcohol   was   found   in   the   blood   through   alchometer.   He   was challaned.

6 The   appellant   has   put   his   appearance   in   the   Court. The   appellant   has   allegedly   committed   offence   u/s   32/177, 129/177, 146/196, 115/190 (2) and 185 MV Act. The entry was made at Sl. No. 30 of Summary Trial Register (STR). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 15 days with fine of Rs.2,200/­.  

7 Heard and perused the record.

Anubhav Singh Vs. State - CA No. 120 of 2018 3 of 5 8 The   entry   No.   30   dated   8.3.2018   recorded   in summary   trial   register   (STR)   is   perused.   The   signature   of   the appellant is taken in the column of name of the complainant. The plea of the appellant has not been recorded in the column. Ld. Trial Court has not recorded whether oral notice of accusation has been explained to him in vernacular or not. Ld. Trial Court did not record what is the plea of the appellant. Ld. Trial   has not returned   the   findings   that   appellant   has   been   held   guilty   and convicted under which of the section for which he has been sent up   to   stand   the   trial.   Ld.   Trial   Court   has   not   recorded   that appellant   has   been   specifically   sentenced   to   undergo imprisonment and fine under which section of M V Act.  9 The perusal of the STR corroborates the plea of the appellant that he has not pleaded guilty. Ld. Trial Court has not followed   the   required   procedure   as   prescribed   for   the   trial   of summons   cases.   All   these   facts   show   that   appellant   has   been Anubhav Singh Vs. State - CA No. 120 of 2018 4 of 5 convicted and sentenced without recording his plea of guilt. Such order is not passed in conformity with the procedure of law..  10 This   court   could  have   remanded   back  the   case   but same is not remanded back as appellant has remained in custody for 7 days after the passing of order by Ld. Trial Court. 11 I find infirmity in the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The said order is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence charged. 12  TCR and STR alongwith copy of judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.

13 Appeal file be consigned to record room.     announced in the     open court  on                                14th  August, 2018 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)                            Addl. Sessions Judge­04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)          South East, Saket Courts,New Delhi   Anubhav Singh Vs. State - CA No. 120 of 2018 5 of 5