Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Govindaraju.M on 2 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BANGALORE.
PRESENT : RANGEGOWDA C.
B.A.L. LLB.
M.M.T.C - V, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS 2nd DAY OF MAY 2015
C.C.No.715 - 2010
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
R.T.O - BANGALORE NORTH TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : GOVINDARAJU.M,
S/O.MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.4, 2ND CROSS,
KALASIPALYA,
BANGALORE.
JUDGEMENT
It is the case registered on the basis of charge sheet submitted by ARTO - Bangalore North., alleging offences punishable under section 192(A) of the M.V.Act against the accused.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused being the GPA holder of the original RC owner B.S.Shivashankar has violated the permit conditions. The vehicle bearing registration No.KA.09.B.6457 is permitted vide special permit 2 :C.C.No.715/2010: No.KMV.3020 to operate from Bangalore to Mysore via Chennapatna and Mandya. Per contra, the complainant alleges that the said vehicle is being misused as stage carriage by carrying individually picked up adult passengers for hire by collecting individual fare of Rs.400/- per head, hence found misusing the vehicle as stage carriage without permit in violation of section 66(2) of M.V.Act.
3. After registration of the case, accused appeared before the court and he was released on bail. Thereafter, substance of accusation framed and read over to accused for the offences punishable under section 192(A) of the M.V.Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, summons was issued to CW.1.
4. The counsel for the accused filed an application under section 216 Cr.P.C seeking alteration of charge to include offence under section 52 of M.V.Act. The said application is rejected by this court. There after the accused preferred criminal revision petition before Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.332/2010. The Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore has allowed the revision petition and directed this court to consider 3 :C.C.No.715/2010: the application filed under section 216 Cr.P.C by giving an opportunity to both sides and to proceed in-accordance with law. Thereafter, this court considering the application and also submissions of learned APP, allowed the said application and plea of accused recorded on 27.07.2010 is altered by including offences punishable under section 52 of M.V.Act. The altered substance of accusation framed and read over to accused, accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. Thereafter, the summons was issued to CW.1 and prosecution has examined CW.1 as PW.1 and in the evidence Ex.P.1 - Check Report is marked. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under section 313 Cr.P.C is recorded, the accused has denied the incriminating evidence and did not choose to adduce defence evidence but in his evidence, he has produced copy of RC book of the vehicle.
6. Heard learned APP and counsel for the accused. Perused the materials and evidence on record.
7. The points which arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused being the GPA holder of the 4 :C.C.No.715/2010: original RC Owner has violated the permit conditions by carrying individual passenger and collecting individual fare of Rs.400/- and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under section 192(A) of M.V.Act ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused being the GPA holder of the owner has made alteration in respect of the sitting capacity of the vehicle and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 52 of M.V.Act ?
3. What order ?
8. After hearing both sides and after appreciation of the evidence placed on record my findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.2: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
9. POINT NO.1: The accused is the GPA Holder of
the owner RC owner as per the charge sheet submitted by ARTO. The accused also filed an application seeking his discharge under section 239 where in he also contended that he is a power of 5 :C.C.No.715/2010: attorney holder of the R.C.Owner. The prosecution has alleged offences against the accused under section 192(A) of the M.V.Act contended that the accused being the power attorney holder as used the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.09.B.6457 in contravention of permit conditions. Section 192(A) commences with the word "whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used". Therefore, since the accused is the GPA Holder of the original RC Owner, if the prosecution is able to prove the offences alleged under section 192(A) of M.V.Act then the accused is liable for the punishment accordingly.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that accused being the power of attorney holder is liable for violation of permit condition as the said vehicle is found being used as stage carriage by carrying individually pick up adult passengers for hire by collecting Rs.400/- per head. Thus founding misusing the vehicle as stage carriage without the valid permit.
6 :C.C.No.715/2010:
11. Prosecution has examined CW.1 - Smt.Sowmya who is the I.M.V inspector who checked the motor vehicle of the accused under Hebbal fly over on 25.09.2009. PW.1 has deposed that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.09.B.6457 is found carrying passengers from Bangalore to Hyderabad by collecting Rs.400/- from a passenger. But, the permit is for operating the said vehicle from Bangalore to Mysore via Chennapatna and Mandya. Therefore, there is a violation of permit conditions. Since, the passengers were on the said vehicle. CW.1 has not seized the vehicle and only took the custody of the R.C. Book and prepared Check Report and there after filed this charge sheet against the accused.
12. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused it is not suggested to PW.1 denying that the said vehicle was not going from Bangalore to Hydrabad, but it is suggested that the special permit was obtained by R.C owner to operate the said vehicle from Bangalore to Mysore via Chennapatna and Mandya. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 that PW.1 has not collected the ticket and also not mentioned the name of the passengers who were enquired by CW.1.
7 :C.C.No.715/2010:
13. Though, CW.1 has deposed the recording of alteration of seats and payment of tax and in the cross-examination also question where put and suggestions were made in respect of alteration of seats, since that aspect is dealt in Point No.2 same is not discussed here.
14. It is the specific case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet that accused caused his vehicle to be used as a stage carriage by carrying individual picked up adult passengers for hire by collecting individual fare of Rs.400/- per head. Therefore, he has violated permit conditions i.e., violation of section 66(1) of M.V.Act. The PW.1 in her chief examination has specifically deposed that she along with ARTO - Jayaramappa stopped the vehicle of the accused under Hebbal fly over and on enquiring the passengers, she came to know that Rs.400/- per passenger is collected and the vehicle was proceeding towards Hydrabad. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused it is elicited that PW.1 has not collected the ticket and also not mentioned the name of the passengers who were enquired by the PW.1. A suggestion put to the witness that the 8 :C.C.No.715/2010: vehicle was given total contract and it was not being used as stage carriage is denied by the witness.
15. Merely because the PW.1 is a Government Official, her evidence cannot be discarded. The evidence of PW.1 has withstood the test of cross-examination. In the cross-examination nothing is elicited to discard the evidence of PW.1 on the aspect of violation of permit conditions by the accused. The counsel for the accused argued that the PW.1 was not in uniform, therefore no offence is made out. It is pertinent to note that the PW.1 has denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused that she was not in uniform at the time of inspection. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted. Merely because the PW.1 has not collected the ticket, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be suspected. It is not the case of the accused that all the passengers were given tickets. It is impracticable to mention the names of all the passengers who said that they have paid Rs.400/- as fare. Therefore, this court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW.1 inspires the confidence of the court and it is trustworthy. Therefore, prosecution has proved the accusation leveled against the 9 :C.C.No.715/2010: accused under section 192(A) of M.V.Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
16. POINT NO.2: As per section 52 of M.V.Act, no owners of the motor vehicle shall alter the vehicle with the particulars containing in the certificate of registration or any variance that those originally specified. The word used in section as "Owner", the word "Owner" is defined in section 2(30) of the M.V.Act as follows; Under section 2(30) the word "Owner" means "a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement"
17. In this case, the accused is shown as power of attorney holder of the original R.C. Owner. The power of attorney cannot be considered as hire purchase agreement or agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation. Therefore, from combined reading of definition of owner and section 52 of the M.V.Act, it becomes clear that it is the registered owner and other persons as mentioned in section 2(30) of the act are liable for violation of the 10 :C.C.No.715/2010: alteration of seats in motor vehicle. Since, this accused is not the registered owner of the said vehicle, hence accused is not liable for the alteration of seats in motor vehicle. Therefore, the charge sheet is not filed alleging offence punishable under section 52 of M.V.Act against the accused. But, the accused himself filed application to include section 52 of M.V.Act in the substance of accusation by altering charges. Therefore, without much discussion as to evidence in respect of offence under section 52 of M.V.Act, this court has come to the conclusion that the accused cannot be held liable for the offence punishable under section 52 of M.V.Act. Hence, Point No.2 is answered in the NEGATIVE.
18. Point No.3: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 and 2, following order is passed:
ORDER Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss.52 of M.V.Act.
However the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the registered owner of the vehicle as per law.
Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (2) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/Ss.192(A) of M.V.Act.11 :C.C.No.715/2010:
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.192(A) of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of two months.
In total fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused as per law.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(The judgment dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 2nd day of May 2015) (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Smt.Sowmya.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Check Report.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.12 :C.C.No.715/2010:
Accused present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court ORDER Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss.52 of M.V.Act.13 :C.C.No.715/2010:
However the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the registered owner of the vehicle as per law.
Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (2) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/Ss.192(A) of M.V.Act.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.192(A) of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of two months.
In total fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand) Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused as per law.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
vide separate judgment MMTC - V 14 :C.C.No.715/2010: