Delhi District Court
State vs Ikrar on 18 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GUPTA, MM (TRAFFIC) 02
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Challan No: 273801240/41
Challan Date: 08.09.2014
Vehicle No.: DL 2W 5199
STATE .......................Complainant
Versus
IKRAR & Anr ........................Accused
OFFENCE COMPLAINED U/s DMVR 7/177 MVA, RRR 32/177 MVA, 56/192 MVA,
66.1/192A MVA, 146/196 MVA, CMVR 115/190(2) MVA, 66(1)/192A MVA and 39/192
OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988.
Plea of the Accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
Date of institution of the Case : 08.09.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 02.02.2015
Date of decision : 18.02.2015
Final Order : Accused driver is convicted for offence u/s DMVR 7 read with 177 MV
Act, section 66(1) read with 192 A MV Act, section 56 read with 177 MV Act, section 39
read with 192 MV Act, section 146 read with 196 MV Act and acquitted for offence
under DMVR 99(1) read with 177 MV Act.
Accused owner is convicted for offence u/s 56 read with 177 MV Act, section 39
read with 192 MV Act, section 146 read with 196 MV Act and acquitted for offence
under DMVR 99(1) read with 177 MV Act and section 66(1) read with 192 A MV Act.
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story leading to the institution of complaintis that on 8.09.2014 accused was driving gramin sewa bearing number DL2W5199 from Badarpur Border to CRRI. Vehicle was intercepted at Jaitpur Mod for driver was driving without uniform. On checking driver was not able to produce vald permit, registration, fitness, insurance, and PUCC. Traffic Challan was prepared by the Zone 1 State vs Ikrar Officer under section DMVR 7/177, section 56/177, 39/12, 146/196, 66(1)/192A and DMVR 99(1)/177. Vehicle was impounded under section 207 of the Act.
2. Cognizance was taken of the offence committed and accused were released on bail on 9.09.2014. Vehicle was released on superdari to its rightful owner.
3. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C was issued on 10.10.2014 to both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined PW1 ASI Virender Pratap and PW2 Ct. Sanjay. PW1 proved on record driver challan Ex.PW1/A and owner challan Ex.PW1/B.
5. Statements of both the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence against them were explained to them in their vernacular language. They claim that the vehicle was being taken for repair and challaning officer did not ask for the documents. They have led DE. DW 1 proved on record Robkar for Permit in challan no. 273801240/41 which is Ex.DW1/A, Robkar for DL in challan no. 273801240/41 which is Ex DW1/B, Robkar for Fitness in Challan no. 286000235/36 which is EX DW1/C, Robkar for RC in Challan no. 286000235/36 which is EX DW1/C, Insurance of the vehicle which is Ex DW1/D and PUCC which is EX DW1/E.
6. PW 1 deposed that accused was driving vehicle from Badarpur Border to CRRI. He was intercepted near Jaitpur Mod. He was driving without uniform. On checking accused was found to be driving without valid insurance, permit, PUCC and fitness. There were 45 passengers in the vehicle. He conceded in his cross examination that fact that passengers were present in the vehicle was not mentioned in the challan. No passenger was made the public witness.
7. PW 2 in his evidence deposed that accused was driving vehicle from Badarpur Border to CRRI. On checking accused was found to be driving without valid 2 State vs Ikrar insurance, permit, PUCC and fitness. There were 56 passengers in the vehicle. He conceded in the cross examination that ZO did not recorded statement of the passengers.
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. Accused driver was driving the vehicle without valid documents and accused owner allowed him to do so. Accused has not proved on record the valid fitness of the offending vehicle.
9. The arguments were advanced on behalf of the accused by the Ld. Counsel. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that no public witness were joined despite availability. Vehicle was being taken for repair and was not being used as transport vehicle; it need not have the fitness for it was being used as private vehicle at that time. Vehicle need not take fitness for 15 years when it is being used for the private purpose. Fitness was taken on 19.11.2014. it is further submitted by the counsel that either driver or owner can be convicted for the offence. There is contradiction in the testimony of witness to the fact that both of them differ on the number of passengers present in the vehicle.
10. I have heard the counsel of accused and have perused the material on record carefully.
11. The necessity of independent witness is not absolute for prosecution case as laid down by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; however prudence requires that in such cases evidence shall be scrutinised more carefully. The Hon'ble court has laid down in Tahir vs State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338 that "..............no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there 3 State vs Ikrar is no. rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
12. Testimony of both the traffic officials inspires confidence and is trustworthy and reliable. Minor alterations in form of suggestions without any substantive evidence from the accused cannot shake their credibility.
13. First Allegation against the accused is that he was driving the vehicle without wearing proper uniform. PW 1 has deposed to this effect in court that accused was driving the vehicle without wearing uniform. Accused has not produced any evidence to contrary neither did he adverted the same. In such circumstances offence under DMVR 7 read with 177 MVA stand proved against the accused and consequent permit condition violation under section 66(1) read with section 192 MV Act.
14. Second allegation against the accused is that he was not able to produce valid RC on checking, same was proved by the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 . To revert this allegation accused has produced on record Robkar issued to him in challan 286000235/36 by court of Ld MM South East to the effect that valid RC of the vehicle is retained on courts record. In such circumstances offence under section 39 read with section 92 MV Act is not proved.
4 State vs Ikrar
15. Third allegation against the accused is that he could not produce the valid fitness on record, same was proved by the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that accused was not having valid fitness at that time and same was also not needed because vehice was used as private vehicle since no passenger was present in the vehicle. Court is not inclined to accept this argument for once permit of transport vehicle is given to a vehicle it cannot be said to be operating as private vehicle on its convenience without surrendering the permit. Section 66 (1 ) MV Act provides that "no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the condition of permit granted...................." possession of valid fitness being a condition attached to permit, this argument that vehicle was empty hence fitness is not required is not tenable. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was driving vehicle without fitness. Hence offence under section 56 read with section 177 and consequent registration violation under section 39 read with section 192 MV Act is proved.
16. Fourth allegation against the accused is that he was not able to produce valid permit on checking. Same was proved by testimony of PW1 and PW2. Accused has proved on record valid permit of the offending vehicle. In such circumstances offence under section 66(1) read with section 192 MV Act is not proved to the extent that accused was in possession of valid permit.
17. Fifth allegation against the accused is that he was not able to produce valid insurance on checking. Same was proved by testimony of PW1 and PW2. Accused has proved on record valid insurance of the offending vehicle however same was taken after the challan ie. on 30.10.2014. Accused has not brought on record any document to prove that he was holding valid insurance for the vehicle on relevant date. In such 5 State vs Ikrar circumstances offence under section 146 read with 196 MV Act is proved against the accused.
18. Sixth allegation against the accused was that he was he was not able to produce valid pollution under control certificate on checking. Same was proved by testimony of PW1 and PW2. Accused has proved on record valid PUCC of the offending vehicle. In such circumstances offence under DMVR 99(1) read with section 177MV Act is not proved .
19. In light of above discussion accused driver is convicted for offence u/s DMVR 7 read with 177 MV Act, section 66(1) read with 192 A MV Act, section 56 read with 177 MV Act, section 39 read with 192 MV Act, section 146 read with 196 MV Act and acquitted for offence under DMVR 99(1) read with 177 MV Act.
Accused owner is convicted for offence u/s 56 read with 177 MV Act, section 39 read with 192 MV Act, section 146 read with 196 MV Act and acquitted for offence under DMVR 99(1) read with 177 MV Act and section 66(1) read with 192 A MV Act.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Dated: 18.02.2015 Neha Gupta M02 Traffic, South East Saket Courts, New Delhi 6 State vs Ikrar