Delhi District Court
State vs Sabir on 14 January, 2025
TC 190/2025
STATE Vs. SABIR
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
IN THE COURT OF GOWRI REGHUNATH : JMFC-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
TC 190/2025
STATE Vs. SABIR
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
1. Case No. of the case : 190/2015
2. The date of offence : 28.11.2024
3. The name of the accused : Sabir
s/o Sh. Mohd.
Hashim
4. The offence complained : u/s 185, 66(1)/192A
of M.V. Act
5. The plea of the accused : Not guilty
6. Date of institution of the case : 29.11.2024
7. Date of reserving the : 13.01.2025
order
8. The date of order : 14.01.2025
9. The final order : Convicted
Page No. 1 of 14
TC 190/2025
STATE Vs. SABIR
(Kotwali Traffic Circle)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present traffic challan issued against the accused Sabir on 28.11.2024 under Section 185, 66(1)/192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act).
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on the aforesaid date at about 04:30 p.m. at Mori Gate Gol Chakkar, within jurisdiction of circle Kotwali, the accused was found drunk while driving a three-seater auto rikshaw (TSR) bearing vehicle no. DL-1RZ-4556 having 187mg/100ml of alcohol, and that he also committed violation of the conditions of the permit of his vehicle by driving the aforesaid vehicle without uniform. Upon issuance of challan for the aforesaid offences, the vehicle of the accused was impounded on the spot.
3. The challan was produced before this court on 29.11.2024, and the accused entered appearance on the same date. Cognizance was taken of the offences stated in the challan. As the said offences are bailable, the accused was admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds. Notice was framed under Section 185, 66(1)/192A MV Act on the accused as per Section 274 BNSS to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Since the accused chose to contest the challan, an application for release of vehicle was filed on the same date.
Page No. 2 of 14 TC 190/2025STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) Vide order dated 02.12.2024 the said vehicle was released on superdari to the registered owner namely Sahil.
Prosecution evidence
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely challaning officer ASI Md. Yameen and witness HC Ankit.
6. PW-1 challaning officer ASI Md. Yameen deposed that on 28.11.2024, he was on patrolling duty at Gol Chakkar, Mori Gate, Delhi along with Ct. Ankit. Their duty timings were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. On that day at about 4:27 PM at Mori Gate Gol Chakkar, Delhi, they found one TSR driver in civil clothes and he was driving the said vehicle in drunken condition. He further deposed that the registration of the said TSR was DL-1RZ-4556. He also stated that he checked accused Sabir with alcometer the alcohol units were 187 mg/100ml. The accused was identified in court by the witness. Challan bearing number DL21213241128162746 was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A and alcometer slip containing the result of the breath analysis was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B respectively, wherein PW-1 identified his signatures at point 'A' on both documents.
7. In his cross examination, PW-1 stated that the accused was in civil clothes while he was driving the TSR DL-1RZ-4556. He stated that there were no CCTV cameras installed at the place of incident. He further admitted that the accused Sabir never misbehaved with him and Ct. Ankit, and that he did not try to Page No. 3 of 14 TC 190/2025 STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) flee the spot. PW-1 further stated that accused Sabir possessed all documents pertaining to his TSR DL-1RZ-4556. The witness denied the suggestion that the alcometer was taking wrong readings and also denied that the alcometer reading pertained to some other person.
8. Thereafter PW-2 Ct. Ankit was examined. He deposed that on 28.11.2024, he was on patrolling duty at Gol Chakkar, Mori Gate, Delhi along with ASI Mohd. Yameen. Their duty timings were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. On that day at about 4:27 PM at Mori Gate Gol Chakkar, Delhi, they found one TSR driver in civil clothes and he was driving the said vehicle in drunken condition. He further deposed that the registration of the said TSR was DL-1RZ-4556. He also stated that they checked accused Sabir with alcometer and the alcohol units were 187 mg/100ml. The accused was identified in court by the witness. PW-2 identified his signatures at point 'B' in the challan and alcometer slip which were already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B respectively.
9. In his cross examination, PW-2 stated that the accused was in civil clothes while he was driving the TSR DL-1RZ-4556. He stated that there were no CCTV cameras installed at the place of incident. He further admitted that the accused Sabir never misbehaved with him and ASI Mohd. Yameen, and that he did not try to flee the spot. PW-1 further stated that accused Sabir possessed all documents pertaining to his TSR DL-1RZ-4556.
Page No. 4 of 14 TC 190/2025STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) The witness denied the suggestion that the alcometer was taking wrong readings and also denied that the alcometer reading pertained to some other person.
Statement of accused
10. Vide order dated 07.01.2025 prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 351 BNSS in which all incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused denied all the material produced against him and stated that he was being falsely implicated. He further stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
Final arguments
11. During final arguments, Ld. APP for State argued that the oral evidence of both prosecution witnesses along with the proof of challan and alcometer slip sufficiently establishes the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it was submitted that the offences under Section 185, 66(1)/192A of M. V. Act are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Per contra Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that the accused was falsely implicated in the present challan. It was argued that the accused was not present at the spot at the time of the incident, rather he was in his office, and he was not driving the vehicle during the relevant period. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted.
Page No. 5 of 14 TC 190/2025STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) Analysis of Evidence
13. Before delving into the exercise of appreciation of the evidence produced before this Court, it would be appropriate to revisit the relevant legal provisions of the MV Act:
I. Provisions related to drunk driving Section 185. Driving by drunken person or by person under the influence of drugs Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,--
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml.
of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or in any other test including a laboratory test, or
(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle.
shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for term which may extend to two years, or with fine of fifteen thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 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 Page No. 6 of 14 TC 190/2025 STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed an offence under section 185:
Provided that requirement for breath test shall be made (unless, it is made) as soon as reasonably practicable after the commission of such offence.
.....
(6) The results of a breath test made in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be admissible in evidence.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, "breath test", means a test for the purpose of obtaining an indication of the presence of alcohol in a person's blood carried out, on one or more specimens of breath provided by that person, by means of a device of a type approved by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purpose of such a test.
II. Provisions relating to permit violation Section 2(31): "permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle;
Section 2(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;
Section 2(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;
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 Page No. 7 of 14 TC 190/2025 STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) 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 vehicles 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 and] a fine [of ten thousand rupees] 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:
Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
Section 74: Grant of contract carriage permit
1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit.
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application. (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that Page No. 8 of 14 TC 190/2025 STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:-
...
(xiii) any other conditions which may be prescribed.
[Provided that the Regional Transport Authority may in the interests of last mile connectivity waive any such condition in respect of any such types of vehicles as may be specified by the Central Government.] It would also be appropriate to refer to public notice DC(ARU)/TPT/2011-12/1571-81 dated 30.12.13 issued by the State Transport Authority, Delhi, wherein it notified conditions for permits for TSRs:
(v) The driver shall wear uniform in grey colour as prescribed by the State Transport Authority (STA), Delhi.
He/she shall display the Public Service Vehicle Badge on uniform on his/her left side of the chest.
14. From the above-stated legal position, it emerges that to prove the offence under Section 185 MV Act beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must establish the existence of the following facts beyond reasonable doubt:
i) The accused was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle
ii) While driving/attempting to drive the motor vehicle, the accused had in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml blood Page No. 9 of 14 TC 190/2025 STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle)
iii) Such quantity of alcohol was detected in a test conducted by a breath analyser or any other laboratory test
15. To prove the offence under Section 66/192A MV Act, the following ingredients need to be established:
i) The accused is using the vehicle as a transport vehicle in a public place.
ii) The said vehicle is being used in contravention of the conditions of the permit granted to it by the RTO or any prescribed authority.
Drunk Driving by accused
16. While interpreting Section 185 MV Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd. AIR 2021 SC 2277 observed as follows:
52. A conspectus of the aforesaid provisions would lead us to the following conclusions: Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act creates a criminal offence. The short title of Section 185 undoubtedly proclaims that it purports to deal with driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. The offence as far as driving by a drunken person is concerned, was built around breach of an objective standard, viz., the presence of alcohol in the driver in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test of breath analyser. The Section mandates the proving of the objective criteria of presence of alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood in a test by a breath analyser.Page No. 10 of 14 TC 190/2025
STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) It is here that Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act becomes apposite. It empowers the police officer to require any person driving or attempting to drive motor vehicle in a public place to provide one or more specimen of breath for breath test, if Police Officer or Officer of Motor Vehicle Department has reasonable cause to suspect the driver has committed an offence u/s 185....
53. It is clear that Section 185 deals with driving or attempting driving of a motor vehicle a person with alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml in blood which is detected in a test of breath analyser. Being a criminal offence, it is indisputable that the ingredients of the offence must be established as contemplated by law which means that the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and evidence must clearly indicate the level of alcohol in excess of 30 mg in 100 ml blood and what is more such presence must be borne out by a test by a breath analyser. We may also notice that with effect from 01.09.2019, the following words have been added to Section 185, that is "or in any other test including laboratory test".
17. Applying the aforementioned standard of proof to the present case, the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 unequivocally establish that the accused was driving the TSR in an intoxicated state. The accused and his vehicle number were correctly identified by both witnesses. The evidence of both witnesses also proves that the accused was examined by a test conducted through a breath analyser, as per which the quantity of alcohol in his blood was found to be 187 mg per 100 ml blood.
Page No. 11 of 14 TC 190/2025STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle)
18. The oral evidence is supported by the alcometer slip Ex. PW-1/B which is admissible as per Section 203(6) MV Act. The said slip proves that the accused was subjected to a test by a breath analyser and the test detected presence of 187 mg alcohol per 100 ml blood, which is well over the limit of 30 mg alcohol per 100 ml blood as prescribed by Section 185 MV Act.
19. It is the case of the accused that the entire evidence is fabricated, and he was in fact not present at the spot of incident at the relevant time, rather he was in his office during the relevant period. However, no evidence was led by the accused in support of this claim. Further, the defence that the alcometer pertains to another individual also does not appear to be convincing, as both witnesses correctly identified the accused. The argument that the alcometer is faulty is also not acceptable as no evidence has been put forth to raise any doubts over its credibility.
20. Moreover, both witnesses withstood the test of cross examination, and their oral testimonies have consistently supported the version of events as stated in the challan, and there is no reason to doubt their veracity.
21. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused was drunk driving the TSR with 187 mg alcohol per 100 ml blood.
Page No. 12 of 14 TC 190/2025STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle) Permit violation by driving without uniform
22. From a combined reading of Section 2(35) and 2(47) MV Act, it emerges that a TSR is a transport vehicle since it is used for carriage of passengers for hire. As per Section 66(1) MV Act, it can be used only in accordance with the conditions of the permit in respect of the vehicle. Further, as per Section 74 MV Act read with notice DC(ARU)/TPT/2011-12/1571-81 dated 30.12.13 issued by the State Transport Authority, Delhi, one such condition in respect of TSRs is that the driver shall wear a grey uniform while driving the vehicle.
23. Coming to the evidence before this court, both prosecution witnesses have categorically stated in their examination in chief and cross examination that on the date of the challan, the accused was driving his TSR while wearing casual clothes, and that he was not in his uniform. Both witnesses reiterated the same during their cross-examination. The examination in chief of both witnesses also states that when the challan was issued, the accused was driving the vehicle at Mori Gate golchakkar, which is a public place.
24. The oral evidence of the witnesses clearly establishes that the accused was driving his TSR, which is a transport vehicle at a public place without wearing the prescribed uniform.
25. The argument raised by the accused that he was not present at the spot is not tenable as the same is not supported by evidence.
Page No. 13 of 14 TC 190/2025STATE Vs. SABIR (Kotwali Traffic Circle)
26. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused was not wearing his uniform while driving the TSR, and he thereby committed a violation of the conditions of the permit in respect of the vehicle.
Conclusion
27. From the above-mentioned discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused under Section 185 and 66(1)/192A MV Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused stands convicted for the offences under Section 185 and Section 66(1)/192A M. V. Act.
Announced in open court today i.e. 14.01.2025.
Digitally signed by GOWRI GOWRI REGHUNATH
REGHUNATH Date: 2025.01.14
15:30:02 +0530
(GOWRI REGHUNATH)
JMFC-10/Central/THC
14.01.2025
It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by GOWRI GOWRI REGHUNATH REGHUNATH Date:
2025.01.14 15:30:09 +0530 (GOWRI REGHUNATH) JMFC-10/Central/THC 14.01.2025 Page No. 14 of 14