Delhi District Court
State vs . on 11 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
CHALLAN NO: 515232
CIRCLE: MAYAPURI
VEHICLE NUMBER: DL 8SAS 2740
U/S: 185 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act
IN THE MATTER OF:-
STATE
VS.
DASHRATH SAHU
S/O SH. SUKHDEV SAHU
R/O WZ, F-121, TODAPUR, DASHGHERA, NEW DELHI
Date of institution : 25.08.2012
Date of reserving Judgment/Order : 13.11.2013
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order: 11.12.2013
JUDGMENT
Brief statement of reasons for the decision of the case :
1. The brief factual matrix of the case as contained in the challan are that on 24.08.2012 at about 8.50 PM, near at a place of PVR Naraina, New Delhi, the accused was driving the vehicle bearing registration number DL 8SAS STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 1 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 2740 in inebriated condition which when stopped, smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of the accused. Thereafter, Breath Analysis Test was conducted upon the accused and as per report the quantity of alcohol in blood was found to be 440 mg/100ml. The accused was also found driving the above said vehicle without holding valid insurance policy. Upon these facts, the accused was challaned accordingly under section 185 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (herein after referred as MV Act). The DL of accused and RC of vehicle were impounded. The vehicle was handed over to his(accused) friend Chhotu.
2. That the accused moved an application to contest the matter, therefore, bail was granted to the accused as offences being bailable.
Thereafter, notice of offences was framed on 31.08.2012 under section 185 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, read over and explained to accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined three witnesses to prove its case. PW1 SI Ashok Kumar No. D-397, PW2 Ct. Amrinder No. 1453-T and PW3 Inspector Mukhtiar Singh No. D-3519.
4. During examination of Prosecution Witnesses, it was deposed by PW1 that on dated 24.08.2012 at about 8.45 PM, PW1 along with Ct. Amrinder, in Mayapuri Circle, at PVR Naraina were on special drunken drive checking under supervision of TI, Mayapuri circle. He deposed that one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 8SAS 2740 was coming from Naraina T Point and going towards PVR Naraina side. The said vehicle was stopped by Ct. Amrinder. He deposed that on being stopped smell of alcohol was coming from STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 2 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 the mouth of the accused. On being checked by Breath Analyzer the content of alcohol was found to be 440 mg/100 ml. which was Ex. PW1/A which bears his signature at point A. PW1 asked the accused to produce his Driving license and other documents of the vehicle. But the accused failed to produce insurance of the vehicle. PW1 further deposed that DL and RC were impounded as Ex. P1 and P2 respectively. Thereafter, a challan was prepared u/s 185 and 146/196 M. V. Act which was Ex. PW1/B which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the above said vehicle was handed over to his friend Chhotu.
5. PW2 Ct. Amrinder deposed that on dated 24.08.2012 at about 8.30 PM, he along with SI Ashok Kumar, were on special drunken driving checking under supervision of TI, Mayapuri at PVR Naraina. PW2 deposed that one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 8SAS 2740 was coming from Naraina T Point and going towards PVR Naraina side. The said vehicle was stopped by him. On being stopped smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of the accused. On being checked by Breath Analyzer the content of alcohol was found to be 440 mg/100 ml. which was already Ex. PW1/A. PW1 asked the accused to produce his Driving license and other documents of the vehicle and he (PW2) left for another checking at about 10 feet away from PW1. During his duty he was watching what was being done by PW1
6. PW3 Inspector Mukhtiar Singh deposed that on 24.08.2012, he was looking after the work of traffic circle Mayapuri. On the same day a special checking of drunken drive was being carried out along with PW1 and PW2 between 8.00 PM to 10.00 PM in front of Fire Station Naraina Road. During the STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 3 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 checking at about 8.30 PM, one motorcyclist was stopped by PW2 and smell of alcohol was coming out from his mouth. He was checked with the help of alcometer and the result was 440mg/100ml. PW3 deposed that PW1 asked about DL, RC and insurance. The accused produced DL and RC but could not produce insurance. Thereafter, PW1 prepared the challan under relevant provision of MV Act.
All PWs correctly identified the accused namely Dashrath Sahu during their examination in Court.
7. In cross examination of prosecution witnesses, PW1 stated that he was on duty from 8.00 PM to 10.00 PM at PVR Naraina. He admitted that he had seen the violator Dashrath Sahu. He admitted that he had seen him at about 8.45 PM when the accused came before PW1. The accused might be stopped for 20-30 minutes. He admitted that he had issued the challan at 8.50 PM.
He admitted that there was no signature of Registered Medical Practitioner/Breath analyser on the alchometer Ex. PW1/A. Although the breath alcohol analyser slip was signed by the accused and by PW1. He admitted that accused person was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. He admitted that the accused did not hit any person in his presence. He admitted that the accused was not under control of driving (In his opinion). Accused was not fall down on the ground from the vehicle. He did not seize the vehicle but he handed over to friend of the accused namely Chhotu. He admitted that no public witness is cited as a witness on the alchometer report as well as challan. He did not know whether section 185 and 196 of MV Act are cognizable offences or not. At this stage the cross was deferred.
STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 4 of 18VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 On dated 17.10.2013 PW1 was recalled for further cross examination.
He deposed that no permission was taken from the court for conducting Breath Alcohol Analysis Test Vol. He deposed that no permission is necessary for conducting Breath Alcohol Analysis Test as per his knowledge. He admitted that time of Alcohol Meter Test report is of 8.31 PM. It is the question of science, he cannot give the answer. He admitted that material of the alchometer test and alchometer today not produced in the court. Special drunken driving checking was conducted upon the direction of senior officers. There was no documentary proof in this regard Vol. but his departure entry was mentioned in daily diary (Roznamcha). He denied the suggestion that wrong alcho meter test was conducted upon the accused. He denied that suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the above said vehicle to the owner/driver of the vehicle/friend of the owner but the same suggestion was objected by the Ld. APP.
8. In cross examination PW2 deposed that his arrival duty was reported at about 8.00 AM on that day. His duty was reported at Metal Forging. The accused was stopped at about 8.30 PM. When the accused was stopped soon he realized that the accused had taken alcohol and just he was put up before PW1 within one minute.
At this stage Ld. Counsel for the accused left the court just saying that he is leaving the court with the permission of this court and also prior to that he has denied to cross examine the witness.
On dated 05.04.2013 PW2 recalled for further cross examination and he deposed that he did not put his signature on the alcometer slip. The alcometer STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 5 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 slip was prepared by the ZO/Challaning Officer. He did not put his signature on challan. His (PW2) name was not written on the alcometer slip which was Ex. PW1/A. He cannot tell about the content of alcohol written on the alcometer slip. Sr. Officer ZO wrote his name in the challan as he was on his official duty with him. He had not consented that his name be cited as witness in the challan, Vol. The consent is not required as he was present with him.
The driver was driving the vehicle very slowly. The driver did not derail on the road and not hit any person. He did not call the person named Chhotu to whom the vehicle was handed over. When he stopped the vehicle time was 8.35 PM. At about 8.36-37 PM he handed over the vehicle to PW1. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that accused was not in a drunken condition. He denied the suggestion that he was not the member of special drunken driving. He denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge of challan.
9. PW3 Inspector Mukhtiar Singh deposed that he did not sign the document Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B. There was no any written paper regarding special drunken driving checking. During 8.00 pm to 10.00 pm he had checked 15-20 persons among these only four were found in drunken state. He was also supervising officers of the special drunken driving checking. He did not remember regarding insurance that accused had already paid to the agent for obtaining the insurance. Accused was driving the vehicle slowly as there was barricading. The test of Alcometer was conducted at about 8.31 PM by Ct. Amrinder. Vehicle was not impounded by way of seizure memo. Vol. It was written on the body of the challan. He admitted that accused did not hit any person or de-railed the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he was STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 6 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that accused was not in drunken condition when he was challaned. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. After the prosecution evidence closed, the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. In his statement accused admitted that he was driving the vehicle. He stated that he was not in drunken condition at the time of challan. He further stated that no alcometer test was conducted upon him. He admitted that he did not produce insurance paper of the above said vehicle at the spot. Though he said that he informed the challaning Officer that he had applied for the same. He admitted the fact that RC of vehicle and DL were impounded in this case. He stated that the above said vehicle was not handed over to his friend Chhotu although he was in possession of the same. Accused wanted to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for DE.
Only one defence witness was produced as DW1 being accused himself upon his application u/s 315 Cr.PC
11. DW1 deposed that on dated 24.08.2013 at 7.00 PM he was coming from Naraina towards his house at Dasghara. He was stopped by police officials near Payal Cinema, Naraina. He was driving the vehicle (MCYL) bearing registration no. 2740. The police official took his signature on paper and took his DL and RC. Thereafter, he was let off by the police officials. He exhibit his insurance policy of vehicle as DW1/A. He had been falsely implicated in the present challan.
STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 7 of 18VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232
12. In cross examination by Ld. APP DW1 deposed that police personnels were on special checking but he did not know for what purpose they stopped him. He blew 4-5 times in the alcometer. He did not remember how much quantity of liquor was found. He denied the suggestion that he was in drunken condition and the quantity of alcohol was 440mg/100 ml. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save himself.
13. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP for the state argued that there is no contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. He further argued that the accused had admitted that he was stopped and breath alcohol analyzes test was conducted upon him vide report Ex. PW1/A showing the result 440mg/100ml which bears the signature of the accused as well as of the challaning officer. He argued that challan Ex. PW1/B bears the signature of the accused as well as name and rank of PWs including challaning officer. He argued that PW1 and PW2 had correctly identified the accused. Ld. APP argued that accused neither denied his signature on breath analyzer report Ex. PW1/A nor on the challan Ex. PW1/B. He further argued that accused had admitted in his defence evidence that he was driving the vehicle at the time of challan and also breath analyzer test was conducted upon him. But the accused did not remember the result shown by the breath analyzer. A question was asked by the court whether offences u/s 185 and 146/196 MV Act are cognizable. Ld. APP submitted that section 202 of MV Act gives ample power to the police officers in uniform who may arrest the accused who had committed an offence u/s 184, 185 and 197 MV Act. Therefore, it can be inferred that these sections are cognizable.
STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 8 of 18VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 Ld. APP argued that no written permission is necessary for conducting special drive as the police being the force is duty bound to obey the command of their senior.
Ld. APP argued that signature of any other witness is not necessary on breath analyzer report as the test is conducted by ZO/Challaning Officer.
On the point of public witness Ld. APP submitted that it is not possible in a running traffic like in Delhi where the amount of traffic is much higher and in these circumstances any public person would not be ready to become a witness in police case. Moreover, it is not mandatory that public person should be made a witness.
Ld. APP argued that vehicle was handed over to Chotu whose signature was on challan and also this fact have already been mentioned by PW1 in his chief.
He argued that challan was prepared by PW1 as also corroborate by other PWs. He further argued that Challaning officer has been authorized by law to conduct breath analyzer test upon the accused and he did so during discharge of his official duty.
Moreover, accused has also admitted the fact that breath analyzer test was conducted upon him. He argued that neither the challan nor the signature on breath analyzer had been disputed by the accused which clearly shown that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time under the influence of liquor. He argued that all PWs had corroborated each other on material particulars except some minor contradictions in their testimonies which are not factum to the core of this case. He argued that breath analyzer report is an admissible piece of evidence u/s 203 MV Act. He concluded his arguments STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 9 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 submitting that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused be convicted accordingly.
14. Ld. defence counsel argued that sentence provided for 185 and 146/196 MV Act are six months and three months. As per part second of 1st schedule of Cr.PC, offences in which sentence is less than six years are non cognizable and bailable. In this support he relied upon case titled as Mehaboob Koya Moideen vs. The State 2011 CRI.L.J. 2795. Ld. Defence counsel argued that all offences under MV Act are non cognizable and bailable and hence, police officer/challaning officer has no power to investigate and to arrest the accused without warrants. Therefore, the present challan is absolutely baseless. He further argued that there are contradictions in the depositions of PWs regarding the time and facts, hence, whole testimony of all PWs are doubtful and unreliable. He placed reliance on case titled as Suraj Mal vs. The State AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1408. He argued that breath analyzer test was not conducted by medical practitioner as per mandate of section 202 MV Act. He argued that word smell and special drunken drive is not mentioned on challan.
Ld. Defence counsel argued that as per proviso attached to section 202 of MV Act which says that arrested person shall be subjected to medical examination by registered medical practitioner within two hours of his arrest.
Ld. Defence counsel argued that no blood test of the accused was conducted as per mandate of section 204 of MV Act.
Ld. Counsel argued that breath analyzer test and blood test can only be done by registered medical practitioner and not by the challaning officer/police officer.
STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 10 of 18VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 Contradictions:
1. In timing :- Ld. Defence counsel argued that the time mentioned on challan is 8.50 PM whereas time recorded on breath analyzer slip is 20.31 PM which is a major difference.
PW2 in his cross had deposed that he produced the accused before PW1 within one minute after stopping him at about 8.30 PM. Whereas PW1 had stated in his cross that he saw the accused at about 8.45 PM.
2. Regarding proof of special drunken drive :- Ld. Counsel argued that there is no proof that there was special drunken drive carried out by the traffic police.
Ld. Counsel argued that no public person was made a witness at the time of conducting breath analyzer test because there is no signature of any public witness on breath analyzer slip. Even there is no signature of public witness on challan. Therefore, absence of any public witness on either of the documents i.e breath analyzer report and challan shows that there are possibility that test might not have been conducted upon the accused. Therefore, this is a major lacuna on the part of the prosecution story and raises a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. He relied upon the judgment titled as Bhagwas Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 S.C. 985 on the point of public witness.
He further argued that there is no signature of PW3 on challan. Ld. Counsel argued that PW1 had deposed in his evidence that accused was driving the vehicle properly and he did not fell down on road which shows that STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 11 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 accused was very much conscious and he was not in drunken condition.
He argued that the whole prosecution story is doubtful and accused be acquitted with honour.
15. Arguments heard. Record perused. Ld. Counsel for the accused has taken the defence on the following points :-
1. Maintainability of challan regarding non cognizable offences as mentioned on it.
2. Contradictions in the depositions of PWs regarding the timing and the fact.
3. Absence of public witness on breath analyzer slip and challan.
It is established rule of Criminal Jurisprudence that while appreciating the prosecution evidence the minor discrepancy and contradiction can not render the entire prosecution evidence useless and irrelevant unless such contradiction adversely affect the core of prosecution case.
16. Section 185 and section 202 of M. V. Act are reproduced as below :-
"As per section 185 M. V. Act driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. - Woever, 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 analyzer, or
(b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 12 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 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 which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both, and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle".
"As per section 202 of M. V. Act Power to arrest without warrant - (1) A police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person who in his presence commits an offence punishable under section 184, 185 or section 197:
Provided that any person so arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 185 shall, within two hours of his arrest, be subjected to a medical examination referred to in sections 203 and 204 by a registered medical practitioner failing which he shall STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 13 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 be released from custody.
(2) A police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person, who has committed an offence under this Act, if such person refuses to give his name and address.
(3) A police officer arresting without warrant the driver of a motor vehicle shall if the circumstances so require take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary disposal of the vehicle.
Reading these two sections i.e. 185 and 202 of M. V. Act together, it is clear that whosoever drives or attempts to drive the motor vehicle under the influence of liquor is a punishable offence, if the content of alcohol in the blood exceeds 30mg/100ml detected by Breath Analyzer or who drives under the influence of drug to such extent which makes the driver incapable to exercising proper control over the vehicle. As per section 185 M. V. Act, even for the first offender, law prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/- or with both.
Section 202 of M. V. Act which gives power to the police officer in uniform to arrest a person, without warrant, who has committed an offence u/s 184, 185 and 197 M. V. Act. Proviso attached to this section says that if any person is arrested u/s 185 M. V. Act then the police officer shall, within two hours of his arrest, subject him (arrestee) to medical examination referred to u/s 203 and 204 M. V. Act by Registered Medical Practitioner failing which he shall be released from custody.
Perusal of section 203 of M. V. Act talks about breath test which STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 14 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 states that a police officer in uniform may asked a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in public place to provide one or more specimen of breath test, if such officer has reasonable cause to suspect that driver as committed offence u/s 185 M. V. Act. Proviso attached to section 203 M. V. Act requires that breath test be made soon after commission of such offence.
17. First argument regarding the maintainability of challan is concerned. Perusal of file and after hearing the arguments tendered by defence counsel who relied upon the judgment titled as Mehaboob Koya Moideen vs. The State 2011 CRI.L.J. 2795 in which it was observed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that as per part second of 1st schedule of Cr.PC. offences mentioned in any other laws are non cognizable and bailable. Hence, police officer/challaning officer has no power to investigate the matter. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also observed the same thing in case titled as Narayan Singh vs. State 1986 Vol. 1st Crime 535. Argument of ld. Counsel that police officer while conducting the breath analyzer test upon the accused is a part of the investigation and as per law section 185 MV Act being non cognizable offence, police officer/challaning officer has no power to do so. Perusal of section 203 of MV Act clearly manifest that police officer in uniform may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place to provide one or more specimens for breath test if, such police officer/officer has any reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed an offence u/s 185 MV Act. Proviso attached to this section speaks that breath test shall be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the commission of such offence. Therefore, there is no breach of this mandate as the police officer in this case was following the STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 15 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 procedure as mentioned in section 203 MV Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that police officer was investigating the matter.
As per Mehaboob Koya Moideen case police officer can make a formal complaint to the court concerned and the court will take the cognizance upon the compliant.
But the challan is considered to be a complaint made by a public servant during discharge of his official duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that challaning officer/police officer took the cognizance of the offence and investigated the matter without the prior permission of this court. Challaning officer/police officer only filed a complaint to the court along with the supported documents and the court took cognizance of the offences against the accused. As per law complaint must be signed by the complainant and not by the witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that challan prepared by the challaning officer/police officer is baseless and not maintainable. Therefore, this defence appears to be inconvincing.
18. Second defence regarding contradictions in the depositions of PWs regarding the timing and the fact. Perusal of file and perusal of testimonies reveals that there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. PW1 had deposed that the accused was produced before him at 8.45 PM whereas PW2 deposed that he stopped the accused at 8.30 and produced him before PW1 within a minute i.e. 8.31 PM. The time mentioned on breath analyzer slip is 8.31, this means test was conducted on that time and it might not be possible to produce the accused before PW1 at that time. PW1 and PW2 did not mention in their depositions that who conducted the breath analyses test upon the accused. Whereas PW3 stated in his evidence that test of alcometer was STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 16 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 conducted at about 8.31 PM by PW2 (Ct. Amrinder). But perusal of breath analyzer slip reveals that it bears the signature of PW1 and not of PW2, who actually conducted the breath analyzer test upon the accused. Therefore, there is a doubt regarding the fact that who conducted the breath analyzer test upon the accused. Above contradictions are major which have bearing on the whole case of the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the case titled as Suraj Mal vs. The State AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1408. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if one internal part of the story given by the witness was not believable, then the entire case failed. It is also emphasized that where witnesses give two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimonies of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness.
In this case neither the PW1 nor PW2 had deposed in their testimonies that who conducted the breath analyzer test upon the accused. It is only PW3 who deposed in his evidence that PW2 (Ct. Amrinder Singh) conducted breath analyzer test upon the accused but there is no signature of PW2 upon breath analyzer slip but of PW1. These raises a serious doubt upon the prosecution story hence, this defence is maintainable in the eyes of law.
19. Third defence regarding the absence of public witness on breath analyzer slip and challan is concerned. Perusal of file and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, it is clear that no public person was made a witness by the challaning officer.
Ld. Defence counsel argued that no public person was made a witness by police officer/challaning officer and placed his reliance on case STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 17 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232 Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC985. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if, police officer/challaning officer did not make any effort to make any public witness then entire story shrouded in secrecy and the accused was entitled to acquittal.
Perusal of file reveals that PW1 (challaning officer) did not even made any effort to make any public witness. Therefore, defence of the accused in this regard is also maintainable.
20. With regard to driving the vehicle without insurance policy is concern. In this connection defence witness DW1 exhibited insurance police as DW1/A which reflect the period of policy from 29.08.2012 to 28.08.2013 which is valid.
21. In view of what have been discussed above prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, accused stands acquitted.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2013) This Judgment contains 18 Pages and each paper is signed by me.
(SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT (TRAFFIC-01) DWARKA COURTS, DELHI/11.12.2013 STATE VS. DASHRATH SAHU Page 18 of 18 VEHICLE NO. DL 8SAS 2740 CHALLAN NO: 515232