Delhi District Court
Cc No. 278/12 State vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 1 Of 12 on 17 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH, MM, TRAFFIC02,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CC no. 278/12
Challan No. 16531516
Vehicle no. DL 1VA 2953
Circle - SVC
State .............Complainant
Versus
(1) Sanjeev
S/o Sh. Gurdayal,
R/o. H. No. 13, Tajpur Village,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village Alipur,
P.S. Khurja, Tehsil Ekdil, Dist. Bulandsaher, U.P.
(2) Abhijeet Gupta,
S/o Sh. Ashok Gupta,
R/o. H. No. HP20A, Pritampur,
New Delhi. ...............Accused
Present : Both accused in person along with Ld. Counsel Sh.
S.K. Srivastava.
CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
Name of the complainant, if any : SI/Z.O. Vijay Singh The offences complained off : 6/177, 3/181, DMVR7/177, 66.1/192A, 66/192A and 39/192 M.V. Act.
Date of Commission of offence : 30.10.2012 Date of Institution of the Challan : 31.10.2012
Date on which Order was reserved : 11.04.2013 Date of Decision : 17.04.2013 The Plea of Accused : Not pleaded guilty.
Final Order : Convicted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This judgment shall dispose off the case of the prosecution based on challan no. 165315 & 165316 of Sarita Vihar Circle.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the challan, as per prosecution, are that on 30.10.2012 at about 10.15 A.M. accused Sanjeev was plying a bus bearing number DL 1VA 2953 on Mathura road, Badarpur.
CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 2 of 12
2. The accused was coming from Badarpur Border side and going towards Badarpur. He was picking passengers without bus stand for Okhla and Nehru Place for Rs. 6/ and Rs. 10/ per passenger. 33 passengers were already sitting and standing inside the vehicle. He was using his vehicle as stage carriage. He was driving the offending vehicle without wearing uniform. He could not show valid driving licence and badge at the spot. He also could not produce any list of passengers and no register was maintained and he could not produce Permit of the offending vehicle.
3. Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was using his vehicle as a stage carriage without having valid documents. The Challaning Officer Sh. Vijay Singh, SI/Z.O. Sarita Vihar Circle, issued a challan against the accused driver for the offences under DMVR 6/177, DMVR 7/177, sections 3/181, 66.1/192A, 66/192A and 39/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter called M.V. Act).
4. Both accused appeared in the court and were released on bail as the offence were bailable. The notices of accusation were served on both accused u/s 251 of Cr.P.C, to which accused CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 3 of 12 driver pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accused owner pleaded guilty for offence u/s 5/180 M.V. Act.
5. Two witnesses, namely PW1, SI Vijay Singh and PW2 Ct. Shanavas have stepped into the witness box to prove the case of the prosecution. The PW1 SI Vijay Singh proved the challan on record as Ex. PW1/A & B. He also proved the OSS slip on record as Ex. PW1/C. The witnesses were cross examined and the prosecution evidence was closed by order on 06.12.2012.
6. The statement of accused driver under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. In response the accused stated that he is innocent. However, he denied to lead defense evidence.
7. PW1 inter alia deposed in his examination in chief that on 30.10.2012, he was posted at Sarita Vihar Circle and on that day at about 10.15 A.M. he was on duty along with Ct. Shahnavas at Badarpur. The offending vehicle was coming from Border side and going towards Badarpur opposite Jaitpur CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 4 of 12 Tpoint and accused driver was picking passengers without stand for Okhla and Nehru Place for Rs. 6/ and Rs. 10/ each passenger. Driver was calling and soliciting passengers. 33 passengers were sitting and standing in the vehicle. Driver did not produce any list of passengers and no register maintained in this regard. Driver was without uniform, without training in IDTR and without permit of the vehicle which is violation of Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines and permit condition. He is carrying extra passengers in the vehicle which is violation of RC under Section 39 M.V. Act. He prepared the challan against accused driver and owner which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B and he also issued OSS form exhibited as PW1/C. In his cross examination he stated that no one except Ct. Shahnavas was with him at the place of occurrence. I saw the incident and directed the constable to stop the vehicle. As the driver was calling for passengers for Rs.6/ and Rs.10/. I counted that 33 passengers were sitting and standing inside the vehicle. It is correct to suggest that I did not record the statement of any passengers nor made them as a witness voluntarily said no one ready to become a CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 5 of 12 witness. It is correct to suggest that no site plan was prepared. Voluntarily said I mentioned the place of occurrence in the challan. He further said that it is correct to suggest that vehicle having CC Permit can not pick the passengers from the stand. Voluntarily said they carry passengers from one point to another.
8. PW2 stated in his examination in chief that on 30.10.2012 he was posted at Sarita Vihar Circle and on that day at about 10.15 A.M. He was on duty along with SI Vijay Singh at Badarpur opposite Jaitpur Mor Tpoint. He directed to stop the vehicle and counted the passengers one by one. There were 33 passengers inside the vehicle. One constable Rampal was with him and he handed the documents to the Z.O. Z.O. prepared the challan. In his cross examination he stated that he do not remember how many male and female passengers were inside the vehicle. The colour of the vehicle was ash colour. I stopped the vehicle at opposite side of Jaitpur Mor T point towards Okhla. It is correct that documents of the vehicle were checked by Ct. Rampal. It is also correct to suggest that I did not sign on the challan. He further stated that he does not CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 6 of 12 remember whether Z.O. made any passengers as witness or not recorded the statement of any passengers. He denied the fact that he was not present at the place of occurrence.
9. In his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date, time and place of offence. He also admitted that he was coming from Badarpur Border side and going towards Badarpur. He denied the fact that he was picking passengers for Okhla and Nehru Place for Rs.6/ and Rs.10/ per passenger without stand. He also denied the fact that there were 33 passengers inside the vehicle at the place of occurrence and he was using his vehicle as stage carriage. He also denied the fact that he was not driving without uniform and he could not show his IDTR training certificate and badge at the spot. He also denied the fact that he could not produce the list of passengers at the spot. But he admitted the fact that PW1 Z.O. Vijay Singh had prepared the challan and impounded the vehicle.
10.Ld. defence counsel argued the fact that PW2 has not corroborated PW1 in respect of picking passengers and fare being charged by the accused. He further stated that no CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 7 of 12 independent witness was made when there were 33 passengers in the offending vehicle as per the prosecution. He also stated that IDTR training is required only for heavy vehicles and not for RTVs. He further argued that carrying extra passengers in the vehicle is not a permit violation. In view of aforementioned submission he prays for acquittal of accused.
11. It is settled law that the evidence of police officials is admissible in evidence even in the absence of independent witness. But then the duty of this court is to examine the statement of PWs more carefully.
12.Now to prove the case against the accused the prosecution has to prove the following facts;
(1) that the accused was driving the vehicle on the date, place and time of offence.
(2) he was picking passengers for Rs.6/ and Rs.10/ per passengers for Okhla and Nehru Place.
(3) he was without uniform and he could not produce the IDTR certificate, badge, list of passengers and register in respect of CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 8 of 12 passengers at the spot.
(4) and there were 33 passengers in the vehicle at the time of offence.
13.I have gone through judicial file and considered the argument addressed by the Ld. defence counsel. PW1 specifically deposed in his examination in chief that at the place and time of offence the accused was coming from Border side and going towards Badarpur opposite Jaitpur Tpoint. And the same fact has been admitted by the accused in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and he is also corroborated by PW1. Therefore, it proves that at time of offence he was coming from Badarpur Border side.
14.Further PW1 deposed that the accused driver was picking passengers without stand for Okhla and Nehru Place for Rs. 6/ and Rs.10/ each passenger. But PW2 does not corroborated the PW1 in respect of picking the passengers and charging fare of Rs.6/ and Rs.10/ for Okhla and Nehru Place. The prosecution also could not produce any independent witnesses and ticket in respect of the fare being CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 9 of 12 charged by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution is failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was picking passengers for Rs.6/ and Rs.10/ for Okhla and Nehru Place.
15.PW1 deposed in his cross examination that there were 33 passengers inside the vehicle at the time of offence and the same fact has been stated by the PW2 that there were 33 passengers inside the vehicle at the time of offence. Both PW1 and PW2 stood by their version in respect of presence of 33 passengers inside the vehicle at the time of offence. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there were 33 passengers inside the vehicle at the time of offence. During judicial proceeding the accused had shown CC Permit and according to which permitted number of passengers is only 15. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there were 33 passengers in the offending vehicle at the time of offence and thus it is permit violation and RC violation.
16.PW1 deposed that accused driver could not produce any list of passengers and register to be maintained in respect of passengers at the time of offence. During trial accused also CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 10 of 12 failed to produce any list of passengers and register maintained in respect of passengers. Therefore, prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was carrying passengers without maintaining any list of passengers and register in respect of passengers.
17. PW1 deposed that accused failed to produce any IDTR training certificate in respect of IDTR. Ld. Defence counsel argued that the IDTR training is required only for heavy vehicles. Therefore, the accused driver has not supposed to have training certificate issued from IDTR. In support of this submission Ld. Defence counsel shown relevant conditions in respect of CC Permit of vehicle. In view of above facts this court is of considered opinion that Ld. defence counsel is correct and accused driver is not required for training certificate from IDTR.
18.During judicial proceedings accused driver has shown valid DL and CC Permit of the offending vehicle. Therefore, accused is hereby acquitted for offences u/s 3/181 and 66/192A M.V. Act. Accused owner has already pleaded guilty for offence u/s 5/180 M.V. Act vide order dated 01.12.2012. CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 11 of 12
19.Accused driver has failed to produce badge during trial also. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle without badge. But the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle without wearing uniform.
20.In view of aforementioned submission and consideration, the accused is hereby convicted for offences u/s DMVR6/177, 66.1/192A and 39/192 M.V. Act and he is hereby acquitted for offence u/s 3/181, DMVR 7/177 and 66/192A M.V. Act. Challan against accused owner is already disposed off. Pronounced in the open court, today on 17.04.2013. Copy of judgment be given dasti.
(Virender Singh) MM02, Traffic (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 17.04.2013 CC no. 278/12 State Vs Sanjeev & Anr. Page 12 of 12