Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Appeal No.38/13
Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh Shrilal
D316, Gali no. 56
Mahavir EnclaveIII
New Delhi
.......... Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
........... Respondent
ORDER
The present criminal appeal has been filed against Order dated 18.04.2013 passed by Sh Santosh Kumar Singh, Ld. MM (Traffic) while disposing of challan no.813030 against vehicle no. DL4CAP 0159 thereby convicting the accused/appellant u/s 185 MV Act. and sentenced him to suffer SI for 10 days and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ u/s 185 MV Act & in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 3 days. The appellant has also been debarred from holding licence for a period of six months.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case for giving rise to this Suresh Kumar Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 38/13 Page No.1 of 6 present appeal are that the appellant/convict was challaned vide challan no. 813030 on the allegation that on 17.04.2013 Opp. Maya Enclave, the appellant was driving vehicle no.DL 4CAP 0159(Car) in drunken condition. The content of the alcohol was tested through breath alcohol analyser instrument and it was found to be 233 mg/100 ml. The appellant was challaned and he was directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court. On 18.04.2013 the appellant appeared before Ld. Trial court and he voluntarily pleaded his guilt. Therefore, Ld. MM convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 185 MV Act. After considering the facts of the case, Ld. MM sentenced the appellant as above and he was also debarred from holding licence for six months. The appellant paid the fine before the Ld. Trial court. Thereafter, on an application moved on behalf of the appellant, the sentence was suspended till filing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this present appeal for setting aside the said order on sentence.
3. The present criminal appeal was received by this court on 09.05.2013. After hearing the arguments, the sentence of appellant was suspended & he was admitted to bail. The trial court record was received and thereafter I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. APP for the State.
4. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the conviction is bad in law and the sentence is too excessive. It is submitted that the order has been passed by the Ld. Suresh Kumar Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 38/13 Page No.2 of 6 MM on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that appellant was not habitual offender but the Ld.MM has not extended the benefit of sec.360 Cr. PC to him. The appellant was not medically examined and the report which has been sent by the traffic police before the Ld. MM is forged one. The appellant is a victim of improper investigation and the sentence has been passed in hasty mood. It is submitted that the appellant is not a previous convict and he is sole bread earner in his family. So the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set aside.
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the Ld. Trial court has passed the order after going through the provision of Law and application of judicious mind. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial court.
6. In consideration of the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the appellant, I have also perused the record and relevant provision of Law. The appellant has pleaded guilt u/s 185 MV Act. The fine imposed i.e. Rs.2000/ has been deposited before the Ld. Trial Court. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the order for suffering SI for 10 days and disqualification of his licence for six months.
7. Regarding disqualification of licence for 6 months, I Suresh Kumar Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 38/13 Page No.3 of 6 have also perused the provision of sec.20 MV Act. which contemplates:
20. Power of Court to disqualify: (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used, the court by which such person is convicted may, subject to the provisions of this Act, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law, declare the persons so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as the court may specify, from holding any driving licence to driver all classes or description of vehicles, or any particular class or description of such vehicles, as are specified in such licence:
PROVIDED THAT in respect of an offence punishable u/s 183 no such order shall be made for the first or second offence.
(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under C1.(c) of sub section (1) of sec. 132, Sec. 134 or Sec. 185, the court convicting any person of any such offence shall order the disqualification under subsection (1), and if the offence is relatable to C1.(c) or sub section (1) of Sec.132 or Sec. 134, such disqualification shall be for a period of not less than one month and if the offence is relatable to sec. 185, such disqualification shall be for a period of not less than six months.
(3) A court shall unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing it thinks fit to order otherwise, order the disqualification of a person : (a) who having been convicted of an offence punishable under that section (b) who is convicted of an offence punishable u/s 189 or (c) who is convicted of an offence punishable u/s 192.
(4) A court ordering the disqualification of a person convicted of an offence punishable u/s 184 may direct ...............
(5) The court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from any conviction of an offence of the nature specified in subsection(1) Suresh Kumar Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 38/13 Page No.4 of 6 may set aside or vary any order of disqualification made under that subsection notwithstanding that no appeal would lie against the conviction as a result of which such order of disqualification was made.
8. On perusal of the order passed by the Ld. MM the present appellant had been disqualified from holding driving licence for the period of six months. Considering the provision of MV Act as well as observations of Ld. MM regarding period of disqualification, I am of the view that the period of disqualification is proper.
9. It has been submitted that the appellant is a first offender and not previous convict. He has no criminal history. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case & antecedents of the appellant, it would meet the ends of justice if the appellant is given an opportunity to mend himself and to learn the norms of civic society. Accordingly, the SI of 10 days awarded to appellant is modified and now the appellant is directed to report to the DCP (Traffic), South West District, New Delhi at his office at 9 a.m in the morning who will depute him to assist the traffic police officials on duty at any busy traffic red light under his jurisdiction in managing/diverting traffic from 10 a.m to 5 p.m for Ten Days w.e.f. 04.06.2013 to 13.06.2013. Notice to DCP (Traffic), South West District, New Delhi be issued alongwith copy of this Judgment for compliance of the order. DCP is directed to submit Suresh Kumar Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 38/13 Page No.5 of 6 the report after completion of 10 days period. Ld. Trial court is directed to get execute the above order and comply the same.
10. Further the order for disqualification of driving licence of the appellant for 6 months is maintained just to keep away the appellant to repeat such an act in future and hence the order of Ld. MM disqualifying him from holding any driving licence for a period of six months is maintained.
11. With these modifications, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. The trial court file be sent back with the copy of this order for information and further action and appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 03.06.2013 (SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Suresh Kumar Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 38/13 Page No.6 of 6