Delhi District Court
Umed Singh vs . State on 8 May, 2018
CA No.27/18
Umed Singh Vs. State
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPL. JUDGE,
(PC ACT), CBI 03, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI
CA No. 27/18
ID No. 175/18
CNR No. DLSW010096862018
In the matter of:
Umed Singh
S/o Sh.Prithvi Singh
R/o H.No.74, Village Sungarpur
Tehsil: Tosham, DistrictBhiwani
Haryana
... Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 05.05.2018
Date on which judgment reserved : 08.05.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced : 08.05.2018
Page: 1/7
CA No.27/18
Umed Singh Vs. State
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict u/s 375 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 09.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the ld.trial court whereby the appellant/convict has been found guilty of offence u/s 185, 184 and 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act). The ld.trial court has sentenced the appellant/convict to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 days and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/ under Section 185 MV Act and sentenced him to 02 days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,500/ under Sections 184, 3/181 and 5/180 (two challans) of MV Act and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 03 days. The driving license of Page: 2/7 CA No.27/18 Umed Singh Vs. State the appellant was also suspended for 06 months.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant/convict was found to be driving a commercial vehicle without driving license and when the vehicle of the appellant was stopped by the concerned traffic police officials and was checked by Breath Alcohol Analysis Test, the alcohol content in his blood was found to be 225.2 mg/100 ml which was found to be extremely higher than the permissible limit i.e. 30 mg/100 ml.
3. The appellant/convict voluntarily pleaded guilty and accordingly, based upon the plea of guilt of appellant/convict, he was convicted vide impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.
4. I have heard Sh.Santosh Kumar, Ld.counsel for the appellant/convict and Sh.P.N.Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State. I have also summoned the trial court record and have carefully perused the same.
Page: 3/7 CA No.27/18 Umed Singh Vs. State
5. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for appellant/convict has submitted that Ld.trial court has not taken into account the plea of guilt of appellant as well as the fact that this is the first offence of the appellant under the MV Act. It is further submitted that appellant is aged about 35 years and is having the responsibility of his wife, three children and an old aged mother to take care of. It is further submitted that he is the sole bread earner of his family and if sent to jail, social reputation of appellant shall be completely ruined and putting the appellant in the company of hardcore criminals in jail, may spoil his entire life. It is also submitted that imprisonment of appellant would leave a scar on his life. Therefore, appellant/convict deserves to be treated leniently and he should be extended the benefit of probation. Accordingly, it is prayed that impugned order imposing punishment of 03 days simple Page: 4/7 CA No.27/18 Umed Singh Vs. State imprisonment u/s 185 MV Act and simple imprisonment of 02 days under Section 184 MV Act, is unjustified and unwarranted and accordingly, he has sought setting aside of impugned order.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that appellant was found driving a commercial vehicle in heavily drunk condition without driving license. It is further submitted by him that already the Ld.trial court has taken a lenient view and no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Accordingly, he has made a prayer for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for appellant.
8. In the present case, the maximum sentence provided for U/s 185 MV Act is six months. The appellant has shown scant regard for the traffic Page: 5/7 CA No.27/18 Umed Singh Vs. State laws of this country and he was found driving that too without license under the influence of alcohol, which was seven times more than the permissible limit. The appellant by driving his vehicle under the influence of alcohol, not only put his life into danger but also of other road users. Therefore, to provide deterrent and to ensure that traffic laws are strictly complied with, strict view is required to be taken, having regard to the number of traffic violations committed by the appellant. Therefore, Ld. Trial court rightly declined the benefit of probation to the appellant. In the opinion of this court, 03 days simple imprisonment was justified, having regard to the gravity of traffic violations committed by the appellant. The Ld. Trial court had already taken a lenient view by sentencing the appellant to 03 days simple imprisonment. Therefore, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the ld. Trial court vide order dated Page: 6/7 CA No.27/18 Umed Singh Vs. State 09.04.2018. However, it is ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld.trial court is upheld subject to modification as above. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appellant be taken into custody to serve the sentence order as per order dated 09.04.2018 of the ld. Trial court and as modified by this court.
9. A copy of judgment be given to appellant/convict free of cost.
10. TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of judgment.
11. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS
DHULL
DHULL Date: 2018.05.08
15:40:43 +0530
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated : 08.05.2018 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI03
Dwarka/New Delhi
Page: 7/7