Delhi District Court
Randheer Singh vs State on 5 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.213/2017
1. Randheer Singh,
S/o late Sh. Dev Pratap Singh,
R/o Umariya Badal @ Gainda
Umariasari, Allahabad,
Umariasari, U.P. 212507. ......Appellant no.1
2. Sh. Rama Kant,
S/o Shiv Harsh,
R/o I16/512, Military Road,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh,
S.O. Central Delhi,
Delhi 110005. ......Appellant no.2
Versus
State .......Respondent
O R D E R
1. By this order, I shall disposed of an appeal filed against the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide which Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate imposed various sentences of fine or imprisonment or both upon the appellants under various sections of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Traffic Challan no.SBC45240186417 Circle Sadar Bazar.
2. The Trial Court Record was summoned and notice of appeal was issued to State and arguments are heard.
3. Perusal of Trial Court Record shows that the vehicle no.DL 1LN 3599, owned by appellant no.2 was being driven by appellant no.1 on 16.09.2017. Appellant no.2 was not having the driving license, fitness certificate and registration certificate. Moreover, appellant was CA No.213/2017 Randheer Singh &Ors. V. State page 1 of 5 also under the influence of liquor. ASI Raj Kumar, the Traffic Inspector challaned both the appellants under various provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.
4. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate explained the accusations to the accused persons and imposed the sentences. The sentences of appellant no.1 are as under :
Appellant no.1 Randheer Singh Sr. no. Section Sentence Fine
1. 3/181 MV Act Rs.500/
2. 32/177 MV Act Rs.100/
3. 56/192 MV Act Rs.2000/
4. 39/192 MV Act Rs.2000/
5. 185 MV Act Rigorous Imprisonment for one month Rs.2000/
5. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate awarded Simple Imprisonment for one month as collective default sentence for fine.
6. Ld. counsel for appellant no.1 has argued that offence U/s 32/177 of MV Act is not disclosed because the same is applicable to the Conductor's license, whereas the applicant himself was driving the vehicle. Ld. Addl. P.P. admits this fact. The Sec.32 of MV Act mentions that if the holder of Conductor's license is suffering from disease or disability, his license could be revoked. Sec.177 of MV Act punishes a person from contravention of any provision of the Act or rule made under it. Since the applicant is not Conductor of the vehicle, Sec.32/177 of MV Act would not be applicable. Accordingly, appellant no.1 is acquitted U/s 32/177 of MV Act.
7. As regards the conviction of appellant U/s 56 read with 192 of MV Act (pertaining to certificate of fitness of vehicle) and conviction U/s 39/192 of MV Act (pertaining to requirement of registration CA No.213/2017 Randheer Singh &Ors. V. State page 2 of 5 certificate of the vehicle), it is submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant no.1 that at that time the fitness certificate and registration certificate were not available with the appellant because the same were annexed in another challan. Today, Ld. counsel for appellant has shown the registration certificate in the court. He has also shown the fitness certificate which shows the fitness from 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2017. It is pertinent to note that the challan was issued to appellant no.1 on 18.09.2017 on which the fitness certificate was valid. Had the appellant shown these documents to the Trial Court, he would have been acquitted. However, when these documents have been shown to the court, I acquit the appellant U/s 39/192 of MV Act and Sec.56/192 of MV Act.
8. Ld. counsel for appellants admits that appellant no.1 did not have any license and therefore, the punishment U/s 3/181 of MV Act is upheld.
9. As regards conviction of appellant no.1 under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, Ld. counsel for appellant submits that he does not challenge this conviction but prays for leniency in sentence. It is argued that it is a first case for appellant no.1 regarding drunken driving and the percentage of liquor was only 67 mg/100 ml which is not very high. It is submitted that appellant no.1 be given one opportunity to reform himself and he should be granted benefit of probation.
10. In view of this request, report from Probation Officer was called. Sh. Padamkant Shukla, Probation Officer, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi filed a detailed report showing that his family relations are good and interpersonal relations are cohesive. The neighbours have reported in favour of accused and the accused has positive cordial and healthy CA No.213/2017 Randheer Singh &Ors. V. State page 3 of 5 role in community. No criminal antecedents was reported by police station in this inquiry. The Probation Officer recommended that accused is a 30 years old person having two children and he has shown rectified behaviour in the society. In view of this positive report, I find it to be a fit case for grant of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
11. Accordingly, I direct that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate shall release the appellant no.1 on probation for period of six months on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/ with one surety in like amount on following conditions :
(a) He shall not drive any vehicle without acquiring a proper license.
(b) He shall not indulge in drunk driving. (c) In case he violates the aforesaid conditions, Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate will cause him arrested and send him to suffer the rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 185 of MV Act.
12. As I have acquitted appellant no.1, under Section 32/177, 56/192 and 39/192 of M. V. Act total fine Rs.100 + 200 + 2000 = Rs.4100/ in stead of returning the said amount, I adjust the same towards the cost of proceedings in exercise of my powers under Section 5 (1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. Since the sentence has been converted into probation, the fine part of Section 185 MV Act i.e. Rs.2000/ is also adjusted towards the cost of proceedings.
13. The trial court record shows that at the time of furnishing personal bond for the purpose of filing an appeal, the appellant no.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/ in the name of Ld. District & Sessions Judge. After accepting the probation bond as directed above, CA No.213/2017 Randheer Singh &Ors. V. State page 4 of 5 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate shall release the said amount of Rs.10,000/ in favour of appellant no.1.
14. Now I take up the case of appellant no.2 Ramakant, who is the owner of vehicle. As per STR entry no.423 dated 18.9.2017, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate imposed following fines upon him :
Sr. no. Section Sentence Fine 1. 5/180 MV Act Rs.1000/ 2. 32/177 MV Act Rs.100/ 3. 56/192 MV Act Rs.2000/ 4. 39/192 MV Act Rs.2000/
15. I have already discussed in para no.6 & 7 of this judgement that offences mentioned at serial no.2, 3 & 4 above are not made out. Therefore, I acquit the appellant no.2 under Section 32/177, 56/192 and 39/192 of MV Act. However, I uphold his conviction under Section 5/180 MV Act. The fine amount of Rs.100 + 2000 + 2000 = Rs.4100/ is therefore liable to be returned to appellant no.2. Reader is directed to prepare a voucher for release of this amount to appellant no.2.
16. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
17. Copy of judgement along with the trial court record be returned to the trial court for compliance of the directions. Another copy of the judgement be sent to Probation Officer, who shall submit his report to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after six months. Announced in Open Court on 5.3.2018.
Digitally signed by VINOD KUMARVINOD KUMAR Date: 2018.03.06 10:46:59 +0530 Additional Sessions Judge(Central) Delhi.
CA No.213/2017 Randheer Singh &Ors. V. State page 5 of 5