Delhi District Court
Md. Salim vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 9 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Appeal No. 06/15
ID No. 02406R0024482015
Md. Salim
S/o Md. Hasan
R/o H. No. 91, Saroj Sadan,
Subhash Nagar,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand. . . . . Appellant
versus
State (NCT of Delhi) . . . . . Respondent
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 22.01.2015
Date when arguments were heard : 19.02.2015
Date of Judgment : 09.03.2015
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal filed under Section 375 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") is directed against judgment dated 11.11.2014 and order on sentence dated 24.12.2014 passed by learned MM01 (Traffic) - SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the matter of CC No. 197/14, Challan No. 254200151 Vehicle No. DL9CG3841 Circle GKC Vs. Mohd. Salim.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2014, appellant was CA No. 06/15 1 of 8 convicted and vide order on sentence dated 24.12.2014, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ and undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days for offence punishable under Section 185 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act"). He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ for offence punishable under Section 196 of M. V. Act, fine of Rs.1,000/ for offence punishable under Section 192 of M. V. Act and fine of Rs.100/ for offence punishable under Section 177 of M. V. Act. In default to pay fine, appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 25.06.2014 at about 7.58 pm, appellant was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. DL9CG3841, he was checked and found to be drunken while driving. On being checked with alcometer, reading came 440 mg/100 ml of liquor in blood. Appellant could not produce valid PUC certificate, insurance paper and RC of the vehicle, therefore, appellant was issued challan, vehicle was impounded and challan was sent to the court.
4. Presence of appellant was procured before the trial court. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the appellant. Accusations levelled against appellant was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined two witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Rakesh Kumar and PW2 ASI Ram Singh.
CA No. 06/15 2 of 8 Statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, where he claimed innocence and false implication. In his defence, appellant examined DW1 Shri Inderjeet.
6. On appreciation of evidence on record and hearing submissions of both the parties, appellant was found guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 177, 185, 190 (2), 196 of M. V. Act. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences.
7. Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.11.2014 and 24.12.2014 has challenged the same in appeal before this court.
8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Vinod Dubey, learned counsel for appellant and Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Addl. PP for State and carefully perused the record of the case.
9. Learned trial court has properly analyzed / appreciated the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as of appellant's witness and found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable and therefore, appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 177, 185, 190 (2), 196 of M. V. Act.
10. This court has gone through the testimony of prosecution witnesses and finds that there is no contradiction in their deposition.
CA No. 06/15 3 of 8 Both the witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW1 Ct. Rakesh Kumar and PW2 ASI Ram Singh have corroborated each other on material points and their testimonies have also remained unshattered in their cross examination, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, their testimonies has rightly been accepted by the learned trial court.
11. Admitted case of appellant is that on 25.06.2014, he was driving a vehicle bearing registration no. DL9CG3841 at Chirag Delhi Flyover, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi. Appellant could not produce the PUC certificate, insurance papers and RC at the spot. He admitted that though he was having PUC certificate but the same was not valid on the date, when he was caught. Presence at the spot and driving of vehicle in question by appellant is not denied. Appellant was issued challan by the police officials, who were on duty and discharging public functions. They did not have any grudge or ill will with the appellant. No previous enmity with the police officials has been brought and proved on record by the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of police officials and there is no reason as to why they will issue wrong challan against the appellant without any motive.
12. Appellant has contended that he was not driving the vehicle in a drunken condition and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Section 185 of M. V. Act provides the punishment to the driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.
CA No. 06/15 4 of 8 Section 203 of M. V. Act provides the procedure to be followed by a police official, when he finds a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place. Section 203 (1) of M. V. Act is relevant in this regard and the same is reproduced herein under : "203. Breath tests. (1) A police officer in uniform or an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, as may be authorised in this behalf by that Department, may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place to provide one or more specimens of breath for breath test there or nearby, if such police officer or officer has any reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed an offence under section 185."
13. The police officials on duty complied with the provisions of section 203 of M. V. Act, when they suspected or found the appellant driving the motor vehicle in a drunken condition. Section 203 (6) states that the results of a breath test made in pursuance of the provisions of section 203 shall be admissible in evidence.
14. The appellant, being checked with alcometer was found with 440 mg/100 ml of liquor in his blood. It is not the contention of the appellant that alcometer was not giving right reading at the time when he was checked with the machine. It is further not his contention that the alcometer was not functioning properly. Appellant has contended that the prosecution has not annexed any certificate or other record CA No. 06/15 5 of 8 regarding the correctness and functionality of the alcometer. Counsel for appellant has failed to show me any rule under the M. V. Act or any law, which requires furnishing of any certificate regarding the correctness of the alcometer. There is no requirement under any law that the police official must furnish a certificate regarding the correctness of the alcometer along with the report. PW2 ASI Ram Singh has categorically stated in his deposition that alcometer does not show any reading if the person has not consumed liquor. Had the appellant been not in a drunken position, no reading would have come in the alcometer. The oral testimony of the police officials coupled with the report of alcohol monitored with the help of alcometer, this court does not have any reason to believe that appellant was not in a drunken position at the time when he was caught. The oral testimony of DW1 Shri Inderjeet is of no relevance in the face of report furnished or the reading of the alcometer.
15. Learned trial court has passed a well reasoned and speaking order by properly analyzing the evidence led by both the parties. This court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by learned MM. The impugned judgment is fully justified and no interference is called from this court.
16. It is to be noted that notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon appellant for committing the offences under Section 185, CA No. 06/15 6 of 8 CMVR 115/190 (2), 146/196 and RRR 32/177 of M. V. Act. Appellant was sentenced vide order dated 24.12.2014 for offences punishable under Section 185, 196, 192 and 177 of M. V. Act. Judgment of trial court dated 11.11.2014 shows that appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 185, 177, 196 and 190 (2) of M. V. Act. There appears to be a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the order on sentence where the appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ for offence punishable under Section 192 of M. V. Act. It should have been section 190 (2) of M. V. Act instead of section 192 of M. V. Act. The order of learned trial court is modified to the above effect.
17. Considering the menace of drunken driving by drivers on Delhi roads and causing fatal accidents regularly, this court is of the considered view that appellant has rightly been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ and also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for five days for offence punishable under Section 185 of M. V. Act.
18. In view of foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the judgment and order on sentence passed by learned trial court does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, the judgment dated 11.11.2014 and order on sentence dated 24.12.2014 is hereby affirmed and upheld by this court. Appellant is present in the court. He be taken into custody and sent to Tihar Jail to suffer the imprisonment as awarded to him by the learned trial court vide order on CA No. 06/15 7 of 8 sentence dated 24.12.2014.
19. Copy of judgment be given to appellant free of cost. A true copy of the judgment along with TCR be sent back to court concerned. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e 9th March, 2015 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CA No. 06/15 8 of 8