Delhi District Court
Sanjeet Sahni vs . State on 15 May, 2015
Sanjeet Sahni Vs. State
CA No: 03/2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH DUDANI
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBII
DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sahni
S/o Sh. Beerhan Sahni
R/o Village : Dallupur,
Near Vasundhra Apartments
New Delhi 110096.
......... Appellant
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi.
........Respondent
CA No. 03/2015
Date of Institution 24.3.2015
Reserved for orders on 15.05.2015
Judgment announced on 15.05.2015
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.03.2015 passed by Ld MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 10 days and also with fine of Rs. 2000/ under Section 185 MV Act, Rs. 500/ under Section 3/181 MV Act and Rs. 3000/ under Section 66.1/192A MV Act and in default on payment of fine, the appellant was further ordered to undergo CA No: 03/2015 Page 1 of 6 D.O.O. 15.05.2015 Sanjeet Sahni Vs. State CA No: 03/2015 simple imprisonment for five days.
2. The allegations against the appellant are that on 02.03.2015 at about 6.08 PM, the appellant was found driving TSR No. DL1RL4455 and he was stopped by the officials of Traffice Police at Africa Avenue Marg, near Sector12 red light, New Delhi and appellant was found smelling of alcohol and he was subjected to Breath Alcohol Analysis Test and the Alcohol content in the blood of appellant was found to be 169.7 mg/100 ml which was found to be much higher than the permissible limit of 30 mg/100 ml of blood. The appellant also could not produce the Driving Licence by which he was authorized to drive the TSR and consequently, the appellant was challaned for offences under Sections 185, 3/181 and 66.1/192A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the appellant was sent for trial to the court of Ld. MM.
3. As per the impugned order dated 04.03.2015, the appellant had appeared before Ld. MM along with Counsel and accusation was explained to appellant by Ld. MM in vernacular language and after understanding the legal consequences of voluntarily tendering plea of guilt, the appellant preferred to plead guilty and plea of guilt of the appellant was accepted by Ld. MM and appellant was convicted for offences 185, 3/181 and 66.1/192A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 10 days and also with fine of Rs. 2000/ under Section 185 MV Act, Rs. 500/ under Section 3/181 MV Act and Rs. 3000/ under Section 66.1/192A MV Act and in default on CA No: 03/2015 Page 2 of 6 D.O.O. 15.05.2015 Sanjeet Sahni Vs. State CA No: 03/2015 payment of fine, the appellant was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for five days.
4. The appellant has not appeared to submit arguments on his appeal. Ld. Addl. PP has contended that the appeal is barred by provision of Section 375 Cr.P.C. as the appellant had voluntarily pleaded guilty and he has been convicted on the basis of plea of guilt. However, in the petition of appeal, the appellant has taken the ground that the appellant in the normal course of the proceedings pleaded guilty without knowing his right of trial and the said right was not asked from him by Ld. Magistrate.
5. In Para 4 of the petition of appeal, the appellant has stated that he pleaded guilty under the impression that maximum fine may be imposed upon him. The contents of para 4 of the petition of appeal do not support the ground taken by the appellant that he pleaded guilty in the normal course of proceedings without knowing the right of trial.
6. The ground as taken by the appellant that he pleaded guilty in the normal course of proceedings without knowing the right of trial does not inspire confidence as in the impugned order dated 04.03.2015, it is specifically mentioned that the appellant had appeared before Ld. MM along with the counsel and Ld. MM has specifically mentioned in the order that accusation was explained to the appellant in vernacular language and the appellant had submitted that he understands the consequences of his voluntarily tendering plea of guilt. The appellant was represented by a counsel when he voluntarily tendered plea of CA No: 03/2015 Page 3 of 6 D.O.O. 15.05.2015 Sanjeet Sahni Vs. State CA No: 03/2015 guilt on 04.03.2015. In the circumstances, it is not open for the appellant to plead that he did not know the right of trial and had tendered plea of guilt in the normal course of proceedings.
7. Section 375 Cr.P.C. provides -
No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.
(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or
(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
8. As per the aforesaid discussions, the appellant had voluntarily tendered plea of guilt for offences under Sections 185, 3/181 and 66.1/192A of Motor Vehicle Act on 04.03.2015 and hence his appeal is barred by provision of Section 375 Cr.P.C except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
9. The other grounds which have been pleaded by the appellant in his petition of appeal are relating to quantum of sentence wherein he has pleaded that the quantity of Alcohol in blood was not so high for which he has been sentenced to 10 days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5500/ and that he is a married person and the sole bread earner of his family and his CA No: 03/2015 Page 4 of 6 D.O.O. 15.05.2015 Sanjeet Sahni Vs. State CA No: 03/2015 life will be spoiled if he is sent to jail.
10. It is to be noted that the appellant was found driving a commercial passenger vehicle i.e. TSR under the effect of intoxication and the appellant was also not find in possession of any valid driving licence which would have authorized him to drive the TSR.
11. As per Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, the permissible quantity of Alcohol in the blood is 30mg/100 ml but the quantity of alcohol in blood of appellant was found to be 169.7 mg/100ml which is more than five times in excess of permissible limit. The appellant was not only risking his own life by driving the passenger commercial vehicle under the effect of alcohol but he was risking the life of passenger also who boarded his TSR on the faith that he would be holding a valid Driving Licence and will ensure safe journey for them.
12. In the impugned order, Ld. MM has observed that the maximum punishment provided under Section 185 of the MV Act is six months imprisonment but on the balancing of interest of justice and also keeping the interest of convict in mind, the convict/appellant was sentenced to SI for 10 days alongwith fine of Rs.2000/ under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act. It is noted that the appellant was heavily intoxicated and by driving the vehicle in this condition, he was not only risking his life but was risking life of passengers who were traveling in his vehicle and also of the other road users and his conduct called for inflicting of deterrent punishment. Ld. Magistrate has already exhibited CA No: 03/2015 Page 5 of 6 D.O.O. 15.05.2015 Sanjeet Sahni Vs. State CA No: 03/2015 sensitivity while sentencing the appellant for offences under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act by imposing term of imprisonment of 10 days and fine of Rs. 2000/.
13. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the sentence awarded to the appellant by Ld. MM. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as awarded by Ld. MM vide impugned order dated 04.03.2015 is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
Announced in the open (HARISH DUDANI)
Court on 15.05.2015 Special Judge,( PC Act) CBII
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CA No: 03/2015 Page 6 of 6 D.O.O. 15.05.2015