Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramanand Chaudhary on 10 March, 2015
Challan No. 22870219914 IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, MM, TRAFFIC - 01 (NORTH DISTRICT) ROHINI COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. State v. Ramanand Chaudhry Challan no.: 22870219914 Vehicle No.: DL 1RN 7817 Circle: PNC Date of institution of the challan : 21.07.2014 Date of Decision : 10.03.2015 JUDGMENT
(a) The date of commission of offence : 22.06.2014
(b) Name and Parentage of Accused : Ramanand Chaudhary
s/o Sh. M.C Chaudhary
r/o WS29A, Gali no. 2,
Sudama PurI, West
Badarpur, Delhi 32.
(c) Offence complained of : Section 11(9)/177
& 66(1)/192A, M.V. Act
(d) Plea of accused : Not Guilty
(e) The final order : Convicted
(f) The date of such order : 10.03.2015
State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary
Brief statement of reasons for the decision--
1. The accused person Ramanand Chaudhary in this case is on trial for the commission of offence under DMVR 11(9)/177 and 66(1)/192A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
2. The facts in brief as per the prosecution story are that on 22.06.2014 at about 12:05 pm the accused was found driving a TSR bearing registration number DL 1RN 7817 on Patel Road at Shadipur Red Light while coming from Ganda Nala, Moti Nagar and going towards Pusa Road. The accused refused a passanger for MGS hospital which is an offence as per the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules and the permit conditions. Accordingly, the accused was challaned under Section 11(9)/177, and Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act respectively.
3. Accused Ramanand Chaudhary appeared in the Court and was informed of the substance of the allegation against him, vide notice dated 21.07.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case the prosecution examined three witnesses namely ASI Rishi Pal as PW1, Ct. Narender as PW2 and W.Ct. Priyanka as PW3.
5. PW1 ASI Rishi Pal in his examination in chief deposed that on 22.06.2014 he was posted at PNC. At about 12:00 noon he was posted at Shadipur Red Light. He deputed W.Ct. Priyanka as a decoy passanger and sent her to one TSR driver respresenting herself as a decoy passanger. The TSR driver refused to go State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary to MJS Hospital and subsequent to which challan Ex. PW1/A was prepared bearing my signatures at point A. He correctly identified the accused in Court. It is further stated that the accused refused to sign the challan. He thus had to make a call at 100 number. He states that the police came in a few minutes and took the accused to Police Station Ranjeet Nagar where he signed the challan.
In his crossexamination, PW1 stated that he didnot obtain any permission higher officials to deploy a decoy passanger. At which point he was asked a court question as to whether ever permission to conduct a drive is recieved in writing. To which he replied that no permission is recieved in writing. A message is broadcasted by senior officials. He stated that it is wrong to suggest that no such message was broadcasted for that day. He states that the message was recieved on the set of the TI. The TI had briefed them in regards the message. He states that no written briefing was given to them. He further stated that many public persons were present on the spot however he didnot give any notice to public persons in regards to being made a witness. He further stated that the decoy passanger was at a distance of around 20 meters from him. He didnot hear any conversation between the TSR driver and decoy passanger. He deposed further that after 2 minutes, the TSR driver and the decoy passanger approached him and on asking the driver whether he had refused WCt. Priyanka, he prepared the challan. He further stated that he went to the police station on his bike. He states that he is not aware as to how the decoy passanger went to the police station. He denied the suggestion the accused was forced to sign the challan in the police station as he had refused to State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary pay the bribe that we had demanded off him. He further stated that no site plan was prepared by him. He further deposed that there is no need of a site plan along with the challan. Furthermore he stated that there is a GPS location mentioned on the challan where the challan is made. He further stated that he did not remember whether the meter had been put down. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW2 Ct Narender in his examination in chief deposed that on 22.06.2014 he was posted at PNC. At about 12:05pm he was posted at Shadipur Red Light. He stated that ASI Rishi Pal made W.Ct. Priyanka a decoy passanger and sent her to one TSR driver respresenting herself as a decoy passanger. The TSR driver refused to go and subsequent to which challan Ex. PW1/A was prepared bearing my signatures at point B. He correctly identified the accused in Court. It is further stated that the accused refused to sign the challan. The ZO thus had to make a call at 100 number. He states that the police came in a few minutes and took the accused to Police Station Ranjeet Nagar. He states he didnot go the Police Station along with the accused.
In his cross examination, he deposed that that he was standing at a distance of 1520 meters from the decoy passanger W.Ct. Priyanka. He states that he didnot hear the conversation between the accused and the decoy passanger. He states that Wct Priyanka had brought the accused to them and on basis of the refusal of the auto driver the challan was prepared. He further states that the auto driver had not refused in front of them. He stated that he had inquired from the accused as to if he had refused and also the reason for State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary him refusal. He further deposed that after the 100 number call was made he didnot sit in the auto and go to the police station. He states the accused refused to sign the challan in front of him. He stated that he signed the challan at the spot itself before the accused signed the challan. He stated that there were public persons present on the road. He states that they didnot join any public person as witness in the challan. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he was under pressure from his senior officials.
7. PW3 in her examination in chief stated that on 22.06.2014 she was posted at PNC. At 12:05 pm she was present at the Shadipur Red Light. She stated that there was a special drive on that day. She was stationed at around 1520 meters from the Shadipur Redlight. She deposed that the TI had briefef them regarding the special drive and on his instructions she was made a decoy passanger. She further stated that on his instruction she had stopped a TSR coming from the side of Moti Nagar Ganda Nala. She states that she asked the accused driver to take her to MJS Hospital. She states the TSR refused to go. The TSR then started quarralling with her and demanded to go to the ZO. Subsequent to reaching the ZO, ZO prepared challan Ex. PW1/A bearing her signatures at point C. She further stated that the name of the accused was revealed as Ramanand Chaudhary who she correctly identified in Court. It is further stated that the accused refused to sign the challan. The ZO thus had to make a call at 100 number. She states that the police came in a few minutes and took him to Police Station Ranjeet Nagar. She states she reached the police station on foot.
State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary In her crossexamination, she stated that her duty hours were from 8:00 am to 3:00pm. She stated that she reached the spot at 8:00 am as per her duty roaster. She states that there were other auto drivers they had stopped that day between 12 to 3 but those had not refused and thus no challan was prepared against them. She states that she was standing towards Pusa Road from the Shadi Pur redlight. She states that she was in civil dress on the day of the challan. She stated that the message for drive had been recieved around 7am in the morning for conducting the special drive. She stated that she got to know about the drive when she reached her duty at 8am. She stated that she signed the roznamcha which is kept at the Shadipur Police Station. She stated that it is mentioned in the roznamcha that she was going to act as a decoy passanger for that day. She stated that there were public persons present at the spot. She further states that she isnt aware whether the accused had refused any other passanger except her. She further deposed that as a decoy passanger she can ask the accused to take her to any place. She stated that she didnot have to personally go to MJS Hospital but merely asked to check whether the TSR would refuse or not. She stated that it is correct that a 100 number call was made by the ZO. She denied the suggestion that she sat in the auto and then went to the police station. She further denied that 100 number was called as she wanted to avoid paying the fare of the auto. She further stated that she went to the police station on foot whereas the ZO went on his bike. She denied that she was deposing falsely or that the challan had been prepared falsely.
8. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Ramanand State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary Chaudhary was recorded vide separate ordersheet under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) 03.11.2014. In his statement he states that he was coming from Patel Nagar and took a uturn at Shadipur Redlight. He stated that W.Ct. Priyanka got inside the moving vehicle from the right side. He told her that she could have hurt herself in the process. She then abused her and told her to proceed further. He stated that he then stopped the TSR and put the meter down. He states that a little further two traffic officials were standing on the side of the road and the lady passanger/W.Ct Priyanka asked him to stop his TSR there. He stated that he asked her to give him the fare due to him. She refused and started instead talking to the other traffic officials in a hushed voice. He stated that they then threatened him and told him that they would teach him a lesson and would give him such a fare that they would remember it for the rest of their lives. He stated that he tried reasoning with them but they didnot listen and he then called on 100 number. He states that a PCR van came due to his call. He stated that a constable from a nearby thana cameon his bike towards them. He asked them to go to the thana. He stated that W.Ct. Priyanka sat in his TSR and went with him. ASI Rishi Pal and HC Narender didnot accompany them. He stated that at the Police station he was asked write his report and that if he insisted too much a false case would be made against him. He states that the police official coerced adn threatened him to sign the challan and also made him sign on a false compromise. He stated that after this he brought Ct. Priyanka back to the Shadipur Metro Station. He states that he again asked for his fare but Ct. Priyanka refused. He stated that challan was wrongly prepared against him and State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary that he never refused Ct. Priyanka and had just asked for the right fare.
9. On 16.01.2015, the accused moved an application under Section 315 CrPC to lead DE. However on the next date of hearing the accused stated that he no longer wishes to lead any DE.
10. I have heard the both the parties and also perused the record.
11. The burden of proving a criminal case lies on the prosecution. It is the prosecution who is to prove that the story it is telling holds beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. The counsel for the defence has argued that challan has been prepared by PW1 on hearsay and also that PW2 never heard the conversation between the accused driver and W.Ct. Priyanka. However in the cross examination of PW1, he deposes that he asked the accused as to whether he had refused and then proceeded to make the challan. Furthermore, PW2 similiarly in his cross examination states that he had inquired from the accused as to whether he had refused and his basis for refusal. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 can not then be said to be based on hearsay. This contention of the defence thus doesnt hold any water.
13. Secondly, the defence counsel argued that no site plan was prepared and this goes against the case of the prosecution. However the Court doesnot consider this to be a material fact as there is no requirement of a site plan to be made along with traffic challans. Furthermore all traffic challans made mention a State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary GPS location on it where by it can be easily determined as to where the challan was prepared. PW1 in his cross examination states similarly that making of a siteplan is not required and the challan mentions a GPS location. This contention of the defence is does not raise any doubt on the prosecution version.
14. Lastly the defence counsel states that no public witnesses were joined in the investigation and thus the version of the prosecution cannot be looked upon. It is settled position of law as laid down in the case of Sanspal Singh v. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr. L.J. 19 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that nonjoining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witnesses no one was joined in the investigation. In the instant matter, all Pws mention the presence of the public witnesses on the spot. However none were joined in the investigation. In Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana 2010 (2) SCR 785, the Supreme Court held that it is not always possible to find independent witnesses at all the places at all the times. The obligation to join public witness is not absolute. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, the Court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence to determine whether the evidence of a police officer is believable so as to place implicit reliance thereon. In the instant matter, there are no cogent and valid reasons to discard/suspect the testimony of the traffic police officials who had no prior acquaintance with the accused and who did not nurture any grievance against him. There appears to State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary be no major contradictions in the testimony of all the three witnesses.
15. The prosecution has thus been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus the accused Ramanand Chaudhary is convicted for the offences punishable under DMVR 11(9)/177 and Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the convict. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the accused.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DATED: 10.03.2015 (Sadhika Jalan) MM01/Traffic (North) Rohini/ New Delhi 10.03.2015 State Vs. Ramanand Chaudhary