Delhi District Court
State vs Nilesh Tiwari And Anr on 31 October, 2025
Cr. Case 2361/2025
STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR
(Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
IN THE COURT OF GOWRI REGHUNATH : JMFC-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
Cr. Case 2361/2025
STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR
(Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
1. Case No. of the case : 2361/2025
2. The date of offence : 21.03.2025
3. The name of the accused : (1) Nilesh Tiwari
s/o Sh. Ram Luvkush
(2) Ravinder Tyagi
s/o Lt. Sh. Chaman Lal
Tyagi
4. The offence complained : u/s 184, 66(1)/192A,
179 M.V. Act
5. The plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
6. Date of reserving the : 23.09.2025
order
7. The date of order : 31.10.2025
8. The final order : Accused Nilesh Tiwari
convicted under Rule 7
DMVR/177 M.V. Act, Section
179 M.V. Act, and Section
66(1)/192A M.V. Act and
acquitted u/s 184 M.V. Act,
and accused Ravinder Tyagi
convicted u/s 66(1)/192A
M.V. Act.
Page No. 1 of 17
Cr. Case 2361/2025
STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR
(Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of two traffic challans dated 21.03.2025 bearing number DL19850250321150647 and DL19850250321153004 issued against accused Nilesh Tiwari who is the driver of vehicle registered as UP17AT2433 and accused Ravinder Tyagi who is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle.
Factual background
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.03.2025, near the traffic light at IP College, accused Nilesh Tiwari was driving a tourist bus bearing registration number UP17AT2433 without a permit and without a driving license. It is further alleged that by driving the said bus, he committed various violations of the conditions of the permit, such as failing to wear a uniform, not possessing a badge, driving the bus without displaying its permit details on the body of the bus, and failing to display helpline/driver details on the bus. Furthermore, it is also alleged that he was dangerously driving the bus and that he disobeyed lawful directions given by the traffic police to stop the bus. Accordingly, a challan was issued against accused Nilesh Tiwari for the offences under Section 66(1)/192A, 3/181, 184, and Section 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act). Vide a separate challan, prosecution was also initiated simultaneously against the bus owner namely accused Ravinder Tyagi under Section 66(1)/192A and 5/180 M.V. Act for allowing the bus to be driven without a permit, committing permit violations, and permitting an unauthorised person to drive Page No. 2 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) the same. Upon issuance of the present challans, the bus of the accused was impounded at the spot.
Proceedings before the Court
3. The challan was sent to this court the next day, i.e. 22.03.2025 and cognizance was taken of the offences stated in the challan. Both accused entered appearance on the same date and opted to contest the challan. Since the offences are bailable, both accused were admitted to bail upon furnishing of bail bonds.
4. During proceedings, the accused Ravinder Tyagi produced a permit bearing no UP1515/102/AITP/2017/2794 which was valid from 12.05.2022 to 11.05.2027. Further, accused Nilesh Tiwari produced his driving license bearing number UP3220130022795 which was valid from 06.12.2022 till 05.12.2027. Since both documents were valid as on the date of the challan, proceedings were stopped against accused Nilesh Tiwari for the offence of driving without a permit under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act and driving without a license under Section 3/181 M.V. Act. Consequentially, proceedings were also stopped against accused Ravinder Tyagi under Section 66(1)/192A M. V. Act for allowing his vehicle to be driven without a permit, and under Section 5/180 M.V. Act for allowing an unauthorised person to drive his vehicle. Accordingly, both accused were discharged for the aforementioned offences in terms of Section 281 BNSS.
5. Notice was framed against accused Nilesh Tiwari for the offences of violating conditions of permit under Section 66(1)/192A M. V. Act, dangerous driving under Section 184 M. Page No. 3 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) V. Act, and disobedience of orders under Section 179 M.V. Act. Notice was also framed against accused Ravinder Tyagi for the offence of allowing his vehicle to be driven in violation of the conditions of its permit, punishable under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Since the accused persons chose to contest the challan, an application for the release of the vehicle was filed. Vide order dated 24.03.2025 the said vehicle was released on superdari to the accused Ravinder Tyagi, being the registered owner.
Prosecution Evidence
7. During trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely HC Gaurav (PW-1) and challaning officer ASI Ram Kishor (PW-2).
8. PW-1 proved the challans Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B, and also produced a pen drive containing video recording and images of the vehicle, which was exhibited as Ex. X1. Thereafter, PW-2 gave his oral testimony in support of the challans. Both witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused.
Statement of accused
9. Vide order dated 24.04.2025, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of both the accused persons was recorded in terms of Section 351 BNSS, in which all the incriminating material was put to them. The accused persons denied the same. Both accused opted to lead evidence in their defence.
Page No. 4 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) Defence evidence
10. Accused Nilesh was examined as DW-1 during which he produced a copy of the All India Tourist Authorisation certificate in respect of the vehicle, which was marked as DW-1/A. He further produced a photograph of the rear side of the bus, which was marked as DW-1/B. The accused was duly cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
Final arguments
11. During final arguments, Ld. APP for State argued that oral evidence of both prosecution witnesses has been consistent, and they mutually corroborate each other. It was submitted that they have withstood the test of cross-examination, and there is no reason to doubt their veracity. It was further argued that the video recording filed in evidence also proves the allegations against the accused persons. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused persons be convicted for all the offences in respect of which the present challans have been issued.
12. Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the challans have been issued incorrectly and no violations were committed by the accused persons. It was argued that the said challans were issued despite the fact that the accused had a valid permit in respect of the bus. It was further argued that the video filed on record by PW-1 does not establish the commission of any of the offences alleged in the challan. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused persons be acquitted.
Page No. 5 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) Analysis of Evidence
13. Before delving into the exercise of appreciation of evidence brought on record, it would be appropriate to revisit the relevant legal principles.
I. Contravention of Conditions of Permit Section 66. Necessity for permits- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the 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 conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Section 192A. Using vehicle without permit- (1) 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, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months a fine of ten thousand rupees, or with both and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both.
14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions reveals that they punish not only the act of driving a vehicle without its permit, but also driving a vehicle in contravention of any condition of a Page No. 6 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used.
15. As per remarks recorded in the challan, the conditions of the permit which are alleged to be violated are as follows: the accused driver was driving the vehicle without wearing the prescribed uniform and without a badge, and the details of the permit holder were not displayed on the body of the bus. This court has examined the evidence with respect to each of these violations separately.
a. Driving without badge
16. As per permit conditions prescribed by the State Transport Authority, Government of NCT of Delhi for all CNG and diesel propelled and diesel contract carriage, a bus shall be driven by a driver having a valid public service vehicle badge of the concerned category issued by the Transport Department.
17. However, consideration of the evidence on record reveals that there is no material in support of this allegation. Testimonies of both PW-1 and PW-2 are silent as to any mention of such a violation. Barring a stray remark 'driver without badge' recorded by the challaning officer in the challan, there is no material to prove that the driver was driving the vehicle without a badge.
18. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nilesh Tiwari violated a condition of the permit by driving the bus in question without a public service vehicle badge.
Page No. 7 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) b. Driving without uniform
19. With regard to the offence of driving without uniform, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as DMVR)
7. Driver's Uniform.-The driver of a public service vehicle other than driver of State Transport Undertaking, while on duty, shall wear khaki uniform with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it. The driver of a State Transport Undertaking shall wear uniform as prescribed by that State Transport Undertaking.
20. As per the version of both prosecution witnesses, accused Nilesh was not wearing his uniform while driving the bus in question. The same is duly corroborated by the video recording of the accused Ex. X1, in which the accused can be seen wearing coloured clothes instead of the uniform as prescribed by the aforementioned rule.
21. However, the prosecution has failed to prove how this act violates any condition of the permit. Moreover, the prosecution has been unable to place on record any notification issued by the State Transport Authority which prescribes wearing of uniform by drivers as a condition of permit.
22. Failing to wear a uniform can at best, be said to be an offence punishable under Rule 7 DMVR read with Section 177 M.V. Act. Section 177 M.V. Act is a general provision prescribing the punishment for contravention of any provision of the M.V. Act, or any rule made thereunder if no other penalty is prescribed for the same.
Page No. 8 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
23. As per Section 245(2) BNSS, when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
24. Since Rule 7 DMVR/177 M.V. is only a minor offence punishable with a fine of Rs. 500, there is no legal bar to convicting the accused under this provision although he was not charged with it.
25. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nilesh Tiwari was driving the vehicle without the prescribed uniform.
c. Absence of driver/helpline details
26. As per permit conditions prescribed by the State Transport Authority, Government of NCT of Delhi for all CNG and diesel propelled and diesel contract carriage, the following conditions must be adhered to by all vehicles;
Details of driver (i.e. name, address, license number, badge number) and telephone no. of the owner of the bus, Transport Department's Helpline no.42-400-400, Delhi Police Helpline No. 1095, and registration no. of the vehicle shall be displayed at a conspicuous place inside the bus in contrast colour, so as to be clearly visible to all passengers in the bus.
27. Therefore, it is the mandate of law that details of the driver and helpline numbers of the concerned authorities be mentioned inside the bus for the convenience of passengers.
Page No. 9 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
28. Both prosecution witnesses deposed that the driver's performa was absent on the bus. Perusal of the challan also reveals that the challaning officer has recorded the remarks- "w/o helpline/driver details" The photographs and video recording of the bus filed as Ex. X1, also shows that details of the driver have not been displayed anywhere on the body of the bus. Further, the accused Nilesh Tiwari admitted in his examination under Section 351 BNSS that driver details/driver performa was not pasted on the front glass pane of the bus. When accused Nilesh Tiwari stepped into the witness box as DW-1, he again admitted that the driver performa was not affixed on the bus on the relevant date.
29. In his examination under Section 353 BNSS, the explanation offered by both the accused for its absence was that the same is not required for buses which are registered in States other than Delhi, and since the bus of the accused is registered in Uttar Pradesh, it is exempted from the applicability of this rule.
30. However, this explanation does not have any basis in law. As per rule 1(2) DMVR, these rules are applicable 'to and in relation to all motor vehicles in the National Capital Territory of Delhi'. There is no qualification attached to this rule, exempting any vehicle that is registered in a state other than Delhi. As per a literal interpretation of this rule, the said rule is applicable to all vehicles that are plying within the territorial borders of Delhi. This includes vehicles registered in other states that pass through Delhi during the course of their journey. Therefore, the accused cannot claim any exemption from the applicability of such a rule merely because their vehicle is registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Page No. 10 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
31. The evidence adduced by the prosecution along with the admission of the accused himself, proves beyond reasonable doubt that the particulars of the driver were not mentioned on the body of the bus. Therefore, this court finds that accused Nilesh Tiwari contravened this condition of permit by driving the bus, and accused Ravinder Tyagi also contravened this condition by permitting the bus to be driven in the absence of these particulars, and therefore both of them have committed an offence under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act.
c. Absence of permit details on the bus
32. Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes certain conditions which are attached to all permits. Sub-section (g) of the said provision prescribes the following condition;
(g) that the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.
33. Therefore, not displaying the name and address of the operator of the vehicle amounts to a violation of the conditions of permit. Both PW-1 and PW-2 stated that permit details of the bus were not mentioned on the body of the bus. PW-2 further denied that he had failed to examine the back side of the bus which contained the details of the permit.
34. Consideration of the video recording Ex. X1 reveals that the back side of the bus contains the following description, 'City Page No. 11 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) Land Travels, Kh. 1001, Gali no. 13, Jagatpur Extension, Jagatpur, Delhi - 110084.' However, the owner of the bus is accused Ravinder Tyagi. The authorization certificate which was produced by the accused at the time of framing of notice, and which was subsequently marked as Mark DW-1/A was also issued in the name of Ravinder Tyagi.
35. Therefore, being the holder of the permit, and the operator of the bus, it should have been accused Ravinder Tyagi's details that were mentioned on the body of the bus. No evidence was led by the accused to prove that the entity 'City Land Travels' is operated by accused Ravinder Tyagi.
36. In these circumstances, this court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that details of the operator were not displayed on the body of the bus, thereby constituting a violation of the conditions of the permit. Accordingly, this Court holds that the accused Nilesh Tiwari committed the offence by driving the vehicle in contravention of the conditions of its permit, and that the accused Ravinder Tyagi, being the owner of the said vehicle, committed the offence by permitting the vehicle to be so driven in violation of the said conditions both of which are punishable u/s 66(1)/192A M. V. Act.
II. Driving dangerously
37. The relevant provision in this regard is as follows;
Section 184 Driving Dangerously Whoever, drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public or which causes a sense of alarm or distress to the occupants of the vehicle, other road users, and persons near roads, having regard to all the circumstances of case including the nature, condition and use of the Page No. 12 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine of ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section,--
(a) jumping a red light;
(b) violating a stop sign;
(c) use of handheld communications devices while driving;
(d) passing or overtaking other vehicles in a manner contrary to law;
(e) driving against the authorised flow of traffic; or
(f) driving in any manner that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and where it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that manner would be dangerous, shall amount to driving in such manner which is dangerous to the public.
38. As per the above-stated legal position, the prosecution has to establish that the vehicle was being driven in a manner that was either dangerous to other users of the road, or to the occupants of the vehicle.
39. The evidence concerning this offence is primarily the oral testimony of both prosecution witnesses. PW-1 deposed that when PW-2 tried to stop the bus in question near I.P college, accused Nilesh Tiwari started driving the bus in a zig-zag manner. However, consideration of the testimony of PW-2 reveals a slightly different version. He first stated that the bus was being driven in a zig-zag manner. But he later deposed that Page No. 13 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) the bus was being driven in the middle lane instead of the bus lane.
40. Even if it is assumed that the subsequent statement is correct, and the bus was being driven in the middle lane, it cannot be said that the accused was driving the bus in a zig-zag manner, as both facts cannot co-exist. In the absence of any specific averment to the effect that the bus was continuously changing lanes or shifting to the wrong lane, it cannot be concluded that the bus was being driven in a zig-zag manner. Moreover, the testimony of PW-1 is completely silent as to any allegation of lane change by the accused Nilesh Tiwari.
41. Therefore, the versions of both prosecution witnesses appear to be contradictory. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nilesh was dangerously driving the bus at the relevant point of time.
III. Disobedience of Orders
42. Section 179 of the M.V. Act provides as follows;
179. Disobedience of orders, obstruction and refusal of information.
(1) Whoever wilfully disobeys any direction lawfully given by any person or authority empowered under this Act to give such direction, or obstructs any person or authority in the discharge of any functions which such person or authority is required or empowered under this Act to discharge, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
(2) Whoever, being required by or under this Act to supply any information, wilfully withholds such information or gives information which he known to be false or which he does not believe to be true, Page No. 14 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025 STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
43. To prove this offence, the prosecution has to establish that a direction was lawfully given by a person empowered under the M.V. Act, and that the same was wilfully disobeyed by the accused.
44. PW-1 testified before this court as follows; when PW-2 tried to stop the bus in question at the red light near I.P. College, accused Nilesh Tiwari did not stop the same and continued driving it, until he reached a point near Vidhan Sabha where he eventually stopped the vehicle. PW-1 further deposed that he and PW-2 chased the bus on a motorcycle as the bus continued to be driven at a speed of about 40-50 kmph.
45. PW-2 deposed along the same lines and stated that when he signalled the vehicle to stop, the driver did not stop the same, and stopped it at a distance of about 1.5 km away from the point he was signalled to stop. He further stated that PW-1 chased the accused on a motorcycle to stop him. PW-2 has also recorded this incident as a remark in Ex. PW-1/B.
46. In his statement under Section 353 BNSS, accused Nilesh Tiwari denied fleeing with the bus when asked to stop. However, he admitted that PW-1 chased him on a bike for about 200 meters starting from the IP College red light.
Page No. 15 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
47. The testimony of both witnesses corroborates each other and supports the remarks recorded at the time of issuing the challan. Furthermore, the admission by the accused that he was chased by PW-1 also supports the version of the prosecution witnesses.
48. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nilesh Tiwari wilfully disobeyed a direction from the traffic police to stop the vehicle, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 179 M.V. Act.
Conclusion
49. From the above-mentioned discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of accused Nilesh Tiwari under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act for the violation of the following conditions of permit, i.e. failing to display driver/helpline details on the bus and failing to display particulars of the permit holder/operator on the body of the bus. The offence under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act has also been proved against accused Ravinder Tyagi, who being the owner of the bus permitted the same to be driven in contravention of the aforesaid conditions.
50. Further, the accused Nilesh Tiwari is also found to be guilty of the offence of driving without the prescribed uniform punishable under Rule 7 DMVR/177 M.V. Act, and also for the offence of disobeying lawful directions of the traffic police under Section 179 M.V. Act.
Page No. 16 of 17 Cr. Case 2361/2025STATE Vs. NILESH TIWARI AND ANR (Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
51. However, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof against accused Nilesh Tiwari with respect to the offence of dangerous driving under Section 184 M.V. Act, and the offence of violating the condition of permit by driving without a badge under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act.
52. Accordingly, accused Nilesh Tiwari is convicted for the offences under Rule 7 DMVR/177 M.V. Act, Section 179 M.V. Act, and Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act and acquitted for the offence under Section 184 M.V. Act. Further, accused Ravinder Tyagi also stands convicted for the offence under Section 66(1)/192A M.V. Act.
Announced in open court today i.e. 31.10.2025.
Digitally signed by GOWRI GOWRI REGHUNATH
REGHUNATH Date: 2025.10.31
16:25:05 +0530
(GOWRI REGHUNATH)
JMFC-10/Central/THC
31.10.2025
It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each Digitally signed page bears my signatures. by GOWRI REGHUNATH GOWRI REGHUNATH Date:
2025.10.31 16:25:10 +0530 (GOWRI REGHUNATH) JMFC-10/Central/THC 31.10.2025 Page No. 17 of 17