Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Singh vs . State Of Delhi, 1999, Cr.L.J 1A. on 4 October, 2013

      In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate­03 
               (Traffic), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.

In the matter of :
Vehicle No.  : DL­1PC­2088
Challan No. :  645919­20
Circle          :  MRC
U/S.          :  66.1/192A, DMVR 6/177 and RRR 32/177 of M.V.Act, 1988 
State

Versus

(1)      Babu Ram
         S/o Sh. Dil Bahadur
         R/o A­20, Police State, 
         Shalimar Bagh, Delhi


(2)      Parveen Lal
         W/o Sh. Bhushan Lal
         R/o C­2/140, Phase­II, Ashok Vihar, 
         New Delhi­110052

Date of Filing the Challan           :27.12.2012
Arguments Heard on                   :16.09.2013
Date of Judgment                     :04.10.2013
Plea of the accused                  :Not Guilty 
Final Order                          :Acquitted for offence u/sec. 66/192A of 
                                     M.V. Act, convicted for the offence under 
                                     DMVR 6/177 & RRR 32/177of M.V.Act.

Present:        Ld. APP for the State
                Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. V.K. Pandey. 

J U D G M E N T

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present challans filed by the prosecution under Section 66.1/192A, DMVR 6/177 and RRR 32/177 of Motor Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act). The brief fact of the case as per prosecution are that on 25.12.2012 at about 04.50 pm the accused Babu Ram was driving one Chartered Bus bearing No. DL­1PC­2088 at Ahinsa Sthal while coming from Lado Sarai side and going towards 100 foota road side. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was carrying passengers inside his vehicle. He was stopped by the traffic official on duty at that place and was asked to produce contract carriage permit of the vehicle, registration certificate of the vehicle and his PSV driving badge issued by the Transport Department. However, the accused could not produced either of the mentioned documents. It is further the case of the prosecution that there was no trained conductor or helper present inside the bus at the time when the offending vehicle was stopped by the traffic official for the purpose of checking. It is further noted by the traffic official that the helpline number of transport department was also not printed on any side of the bus as required by the rules. Therefore, the accused was challaned for the violation of offences U/s 66.1/192A, DMVR 6/177 and RRR 32/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vide challan bearing No.645919 which is Ex.PW­1/A. The prosecution has also submitted before the court that since the driver could not produce contract carriage permit, registration certificate of the vehicle, his driving badge and also due to the fact that the helpline number of the transport department was also not printed on the bus, the owner of the vehicle is also liable for the violation of permit conditions u/s 66.1/192A, the owner of the vehicle Smt. Parveen Lal has also been arrayed as an accused and a challan bearing No. 645920 was issued against her which is Ex.PW­1/B for the violation of permit condition U/s 66.1/192A of M.V. Act. The offending vehicle was also Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 impounded by the challaning officer under Section 207 of M.V. Act and O.S.S. Form was also issued to the accused which is Ex.PW­1/C.

2. Since the offences are bailable, both the accused/driver as well as the owner of the vehicle were admitted on bail on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/­. An application for the release of offending vehicle on superdari was moved by the owner of the vehicle and the same was accepted and the vehicle was released on superdari on furnishing of superdarinama in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­.

3. Notice of accusation was served upon both the accused/driver as well as the owner of the vehicle U/s 251 CrPC to which both the accused/driver and the owner of the vehicle pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses namely PW1 SI V.S. Deol, No.1858D and PW2 Const. Ashok Kumar , No. 4457T and also proved the challan which is Ex.PW­1/A. PW1, in his examination­in­chief deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 25.12.2012 he was posted on duty at Ahinsa Sthal, Anuvrat Marg alongwith the PW2 Const. Ashok Kumar. At around 04.50 p.m. the accused/driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL­1PC­2088 Babu Ram came from Lado Sarai side with the bus and he was going towards 100 Foota road. Passengers were traveling inside the bus. After noticing the offending vehicle PW1 directed accused/driver to stop his bus for the purpose of checking. On his direction the accused/driver stop the abovementioned bus Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 and thereafter, he asked the accused/driver to produce the documents of the vehicle. As per the testimony of PW1 the accused/ driver showed his valid driving license. However, he could not produce his PSV driving badge, registration certificate and valid contract carriage permit of the vehicle. PW1 further noticed that there was no conductor present inside the bus and the details of the owner of the vehicle and helpline number of the transport department was also missing i.e. not printed on the exterior body of the vehicle. Therefore, PW1 issued a challan against the accused/driver which is Ex.PW1/A and the offending vehicle was also impounded u/s 207 M.V. Act and an OSS form was issued to the accused which is Ex.PW1/C. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that as submitted by him in his examination in chief, the present challan against accused was issued since he could not produce valid driving badge, registration certificate, contract carriage permit of the vehicle and also for the reason that helpline number of the transport department and details of the owner of the vehicle were not found to be printed on the exterior body of the vehicle. PW1 further deposed in his cross examination that there were around 30­35 passengers inside the vehicle and they were traveling from AIIMS to IFFCO Chowk, Gurgaon. PW1 also deposed he tried to note down the name and address of those passengers but they did not told him anything. In the end PW1 negated the suggestion of defence counsel that no passenger was traveling in the bus and that he is deposing falsely in the present case.

In his examination­in­chief, PW2 deposed that on the day of incident, he was posted on duty at Mehrauli Traffic Circle and was performing his duty at Lado Sarai T­point near Ahinsa Sthal alongwith PW1 SI V.S Deol. Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 At about 04.50 pm the accused/driver came with the bus from Lado Sarai side. PW1 directed him to signal the accused/driver to stop his bus. Accordingly, he signaled the accused/driver and he stopped the bus. Thereafter, PW2 asked the accused/deriver to go down from the bus and to bring his documents and come alongwith him to PW1 ZO/SI V.S. Deol. PW1 SI V.S. Deol inspected the documents of the vehicle and he found that the accused did not have his PSV driving badge, valid contract carriage permit and registration certificate of the vehicle. PW2 further deposed that there was no conductor present inside the bus and the details of the owner of the vehicle and the helpline number of the transport authority were not printed on the exterior body of the vehicle. As per the testimony of PW2 around 30­35 passengers were sitting inside the vehicle when it was stopped by them. Thereafter, PW1 issued a challan against accused/driver which is Ex.PW1/A and also impounded the vehicle u/s 207 of M.V. Act.

In his cross­examination PW2 deposed that PW1 SI V.S. Deol counted the passengers inside the bus and at that time he was not present inside the bus. He further deposed that PW1 did not made any of those passenger who were present inside the vehicle a witness in the present case nor did he photographed or videographed the offending vehicle. In the end PW2 negated the suggestion of the defence counsel that he was not present at the spot and also that the vehicle was not impounded and that he is deposing falsely in the present case.

5. PE was closed on 10.07.2013 and thereafter the statements of accused/driver u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The owner of the vehicle moved Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 an application that her examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C be dispensed with since she is not well and that she will not be prejudiced if her examination is dispensed with u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The application of the owner of the vehicle was allowed and the court proceeded further with recording the examination of accused/driver Babu Ram u/s 313 Cr.P.C. During the examination of accused U/s 313 CrPC, the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him and he was given an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him to which he submitted that he accept all the allegations against him that he was not carrying his PSV driving badge, registration certificate and contract carriage permit of the vehicle when he was stopped by the traffic official on duty. However, it is incorrect that the helpline number of the State Transport Authority and details of owner of the vehicle were not printed on the exterior body of the vehicle.

6. After examination of the accused/driver U/s 313 CrPC, defence counsel submitted that they do not wish to lead defence evidence in the present case but wants to submit the documents of the vehicle. They produced original registration certificate and contract carriage of the permit of the vehicle which are valid. The original documents were seen by the court and returned to the parties and copies thereof were taken on record and Marked as Annexure A and B. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing on final arguments.

7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel at length and have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence and after carefully perusing the same, I am giving my finding as per below:

Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 In the present challan, the accused/driver was challaned for the violations of Section 66.1/192A, 6/177 and 32/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and owner of the vehicle was challaned only for section 66/192A.
(a) Sec. 66 of The Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 provides that:
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:
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for on in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.
(2) The Holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi­trailer not owned Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime­mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi­trailor] (3) The provisions of sub­section (1) shall not apply ­
(a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;
(b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes;
(c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes;
(d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses;
(e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety;
(f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf;
Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088
(g) to any transport vehicle used by person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;
(j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that Sate or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods;
(k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.
(m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road or unforeseen circumstance, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination; Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088
(n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify;
(o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire­ purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or
(p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub­section (3), sub­ section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine person excluding the driver.

The penalty for violation of Section 66 of M.V. Act is provided in Section 192A.

Sec.192A of The Motor Vehicle Act,1988 provides that :

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 sub­section (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 prupsoe for which the Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 vehicle may be used shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury or for the transport of materials for repair or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose:
Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.
(3) The court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub­section (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.

It is also important to go through some other important provisions for the better understanding of violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as alleged to be committed by the accused. Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 Therefore, we must understand the meaning of permit, contract carriage permit as well as stage carriage permit, a motor vehicle, a transport vehicle and Section 84 of M.V. Act.

Section 84 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

General conditions attaching to all permits - The following shall be conditions of every permit­

(a) that the vehicle to which the permit relates carries valid certificate of fitness issued under section 56 and is at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder;

(b) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven at a speed exceeding the speed permitted under this Act;

(c) that any prohibition or restriction imposed any fares or freight fixed by notification made under section 67 are observed in connection with the vehicle to which the permit relates;

(d) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven in contravention of the provisions of section 5 or section 113;

(e) that the provisions of this Act limiting the hours of work of drivers are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates;

(f) that the provisions of Chapters X, XI and XII so far as they apply to the holder of the permit are observed; and

(g) that the name and address of the operator shall be painted Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 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 centred as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters. Section 2(31) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Permit"

"Permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle;
Section 2(7) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Contract carriage"
"Contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum ­
(a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 the journey, and includes ­
(i) a maxicab; and
(ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers;

Section 2(40) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Stage Carriage".

"Stage Carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages journey;
Section 2(28) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Motor Vehicle"
"Motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding [twenty­five cubic centimetres] Section 2(47) of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines "Transport Vehicle"
"Transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a good carriage, an educational institute bus or a private service Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 vehicle.
Rule 6 of DMVR provides that :
Driver's Badge. ­ (1) The driver of a public service vehicle shall display on his left chest a metal or plastic badge of the shape, size and colour approved by the Commissioner from time to time issued by, and inscribed with, the name of the authority by which an authorization to drive a public service vehicle has been granted and word "Driver" together with an identification number. The issuing authority for badges shall be the licensing authority as given in rule 3.
(2) A driver of a public service vehicle shall not hold more than one such badge issued in the State.
(3) The fee for the issue of a badge as aforesaid by the licensing authority shall be Rupees 9[Two hundred.] If the badge is lost or destroyed a duplicate badge shall be issued on payment of Rupees 10[Two hundred] as penalty/charges thereof. (4) If at any time the authorization on a driver's licence entitling him to drive a public service vehicle is suspended or revoked by any authority or any court or ceased to be valid by the efflux of time, the driver shall within seven days thereof surrender the badge to the licensing authority.
(5) An appeal against the order of issuing authority for badges shall be dealt within the same manner as in the case of driving licence given in Rule 4.

Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 Rule 32 of RRR provides that:

Production of documents. ­­ A person driving a vehicle,
(i) shall always carry with him his driving license;

certificate of registration; certificate of taxation and certificate of insurance of the vehicle and in case of transport vehicle the permit and fitness certificate, also;

(ii) shall on demand by police officer in uniform or an officer of the Motor Vehicle Department in uniform or any other officer authorised by the government, produce the documents for inspection.

The penalty for the violation of DMVR 6 and RRR 32 is provided under sec. 177 of the Motor vehicle Act.

Section 177 of M.V. Act provides that:

General provision for punishment of offences - Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.

8. Thus in order to prove the guilt of the accused and to sustain his conviction the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubts that:

Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088
1. The accused committed violation under DMVR 6/177 of Motor Vehicle Act i.e. he did not have valid PSV driving badge.
2. The accused committed violation under RRR 32/177 of M.V. Act i.e. he did not produce registration certificate and contract carriage permit of the vehicle on demand of the challaning officer.
3. Both the accused committed violation u/s 66/192A of Motor Vehicle Act for the reason :
(i) The offending vehicle did not have a valid contract carriage permit, or
(ii) that accused has violated the condition of Contract Carriage Permit by violating the condition prescribed under clause (g) of sec. 84 which also amounts to violation of permit conditions ,i.e, "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 centred as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.".

To prove this, firstly Ld. APP for State has argued before the court that both the prosecution witness namely PW1 SI V.S. Deol and PW2 Ct. Ashok Kumar have proved the challan on record and have correctly identified the accused. Both the prosecution witnesses have remained consistent in their testimonies. However, the Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that there are many discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

(1) With respect to the accusations levelled against the accused Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 under rule DMVR 6/177 of M.V. Act i.e. not having a valid PSV driving badge, the Ld. APP for the accused has argued before the court that both PW1 & PW2 have categorically deposed before the court that the accused/driver was driving his vehicle without having a valid PSV badge. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C also he accepted that he was without a valid PSV badge. In his defence evidence, he did not produce any documents disclosing that he has a valid PSV badge. Therefore, this allegations stands proved against him. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has further submitted that the present challan was chalked out on 25.12.2012 whereas the notification which made it mandatory for every person driving a commercials passenger vehicle to have a valid PSV driving badge came into force in the month of May 2013 and it was only prospective in operation. Therefore, it would not covered the cases in which the above mentioned violation took place before the date of operation of the above mentioned notification. Therefore, it would not apply in the present case as well. Therefore, the accused is not guilty of any violation under DMVR 6/177 of Motor Vehicle Act.

The court does not find any merit in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel as when the substantive provision is already there, there is no need of any further notification regarding the same provision or requirement on the part of State Transport Authority and, therefore, since the accused could not produce his Valid Driving Badge he stands convicted for the offence under Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 DMVR 6/177 of M.V. Act.

(2) With respect to the accusations levelled against the accused under rule RRR 32/177 of M.V. Act i.e. not producing the registration certificate and valid contract carriage permit of the vehicle, the Ld. APP for the State has argued before the court that both PW1 & PW2 have deposed in their testimonies that the accused did not produce valid contract carriage permit and the registration certificate of the vehicle on their demand. Even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted the fact that he did not produce the abovementioned documents when demanded by the challaning officer.

The court finds merits in the submission of Ld APP for the state and in view of the admission of the accused this allegation also stand proved against him and he stands convicted for the same (3) Lastly, with respect to the accusations levelled against both the accused U/s 66/192A of M.V. Act there are two questions for consideration before the court.

Firstly, whether the offending vehicle was without any valid Contract Carriage Permit - This question needs no further deliberation as the accused has already placed on record the original valid Contract Carriage Permit and the copy of the same is marked as Annexure­B. Now, the second question for consideration before the court is whether the accused has violated the condition of Contract Carriage Permit by violating clause (g) of sec. 84 which also amounts to violation of permit conditions,i.e, the details of the operator of the vehicle were missing on the Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 vehicle.

Before coming to any conclusion with respect to the abovementioned allegations, the court has to again appreciate the evidence of PW1 and PW2 for the same.

Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out that there are many inconsistencies and loopholes in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 which raises serious doubts as to the veracity of the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued before the court that as per the testimonies of both PW1 and PW2 the details of the owner of the vehicle and the helpline number of the State Transport Authority were not printed on the exterior body of the vehicle. As per their deposition around 30­35 passengers were traveling inside the bus but neither of the prosecution witness made any serious efforts to persuade any of those passengers to be a witness in the present case nor did they issued any notice to them for not abiding their directions for refusal to be a witness to substantiate their abovementioned allegations against the accused/driver. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that PW2 has deposed in his cross examination that PW1 ZO/SI V.S. Deol did not took any photographs of the vehicle nor did he made any efforts to collect any video graphic record by videographing the bus which he should have made for the purpose of establishing that actually the details of the owner of the vehicle and the helpline number of the State Transport Authority were missing on the exterior body of the vehicle. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that it is a settled proposition of law that when independent public witnesses are available at the spot they must be joined as public witnesses. In the case of non­joining of public witnesses even when they were available and no plausible explanation Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 coming forth from the prosecution for the same, the case of the prosecution should be seen with reasonable circumspection as it would be unsafe to believe the story of prosecution in absence of the independent public witnesses. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanspal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, 1999, Cr.L.J 1a.

All these omissions on the part of both the prosecution witnesses clearly reflects that the allegations against the accused/driver as well as owner of the vehicle that details of the vehicle and helpline number of the State Transport Authority were not printed on the exterior body of the vehicle are baseless and stands not proved.

I find merits in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel as the omission pointed out are very relevant. The prosecution witnesses should have made some efforts to prove on record that the offending vehicle was actually plying without having the details of the owner of the vehicle and helpline number of the State Transport Authority on it. There is no documentary or any other proof available on record which corroborates the allegations of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the allegations against both the accused/driver and owner of the vehicle that the details of the owner of the vehicle and the helpline number of the State Transport Authority were not printed on the exterior body of the vehicle, remains not proved.

Since both the abovementioned allegations for permit violation i.e. (a) not having a valid contract carriage permit, and (b) no details of the owner of the vehicle and helpline number of the State Transport Authority on the exterior body of the vehicle, are not proved against the accused and owner of the vehicle, both of them are acquitted of the charges u/s 66/192A of Motor Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 Vehicle Act.

9. Hence, after all the discussion above, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to proved the accusations levelled against both the accused driver as well as owner of the vehicle U/s 66/192A of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubts and both of them stands acquitted of the same. However, the accusation levelled against the accused/driver under DMVR 6/177 and RRR 32/177 of M.V. Act stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts and he is held guilty for the same.

Let the accused/driver be heard separately on quantum of sentence. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to both the accused. Pronounced in the open court.

Announced in the open court (Balwinder Singh) on 4 day of October, 2013 th Metropolitan Magistrate­03, Traffic, South District, Saket, New Delhi.

Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard on the quantum of sentence. The Ld. APP for the state has argued that the accused driver has been convicted for the offences under DMVR 6/177 & RRR 32/177 of M.V. Act and, therefore, he should be strictly punished for the violation.

On the other hand the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused has stated that accused driver is a poor person and that this is his first offence. Thus, prayed that a lenient view may be taken.

Taking the financial condition of the accused into consideration and the fact that it is his first offence a lenient view is taken against the accused in the interest of justice and he is admonished for the same.

Documents seized, if any, be released to the rightful party as per law.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

(Balwinder Singh) M.M.(Traffic)­03, Saket Court, New Delhi 04.10.2013 Vehicle No. : DL­1PC­2088