Bangalore District Court
Basavanagudi Trps vs Jayaram L on 17 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED : THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2024
C.C. No.17-2022
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi
Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Jayaram L.
S/o. Late R. Lakshmanaiah,
R/at No.1204, Ground floor,
Avalahalli main road,
Srinagara,
Bangalore - 560 050
(Represented by: Sri C.N. Chandrashekar Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence: 20-09-2021
2. Offences alleged against accused: U/s.283 of IPC,
3. Date of recording of evidence: 07-01-2023
4. Date of closing evidence: 30-05-2024
5. Date of judgment: 17-08-2024
***
2
C.C.No.17/2022
JUDGEMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Basavanagudi Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.283 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-09-2021, the accused being the driver and owner of Piaggo Ape Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA- 41-6409 has parked his vehicle in front of building No.10/A of Hanumanthnagar, 50ft road from last 20 days and thereby caused obstructions to general public. In spite of repeated notices on this aspect he did not given any suitable reply and refused to receive the notice through RPAD, thereby accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/s.283 of IPC, Sec.133 R/w.187 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.283 of IPC, Sec.133 R/w.187 of IMV Act. The accused appeared before the court through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet 3 C.C.No.17/2022 copies furnished to the accused persons and thereby provision U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.283 of IPC, Secc.133 R/w.187 of IMV Act. for which accused has pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 7 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard both the sides. The prosecutor contended that in the case on hand the accused being the owner of the goods vehicle has parked the vehicle in the road and the said vehicle was parked for more than 20 days and on that regard the general public lodged a complaint in the police station. Later police given notice to the accused for which the 4 C.C.No.17/2022 accused has not given satisfactory answers. Hence they registered the complaint. The prosecution has examined three independent witnesses all of them deposed about the parking of the said vehicle in the road. The said road is a one way road and since there is a heavy traffic, the two way traffic is restricted and for smooth movement one way traffic is permitted. Accused parked his vehicle in a no parking place and that amounts to obstruction. The said parking proved by prosecution through its witnesses and accordingly he prays for conviction of accused.
7. The accused himself addressed arguments and contended that the instant case itself is not tenable and traffic police has no power to file complaint. The traffic police should work under the control of RTO as per RTO rules and they have violated the said condition they have illegally seized his vehicle. He is the owner of yellow board goods vehicle and he is parking the vehicle in the said spot from several years. The government is liable to provide parking for yellow board vehicles as per the traffic rules and they have not provided him designated place for parking and as per Karnataka Motor Vehicles rules the traffic 5 C.C.No.17/2022 police has no power to issue Sec.133 notice to him, the police has acted illegally and without powers they have illegally lodged complaint against him and accordingly he prays for acquittal.
8. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20-09-2021, the accused being the driver and owner of Piaggo Ape Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-41-
6409 has parked his vehicle in front of building No.10/A of Hanumanthnagar, 50ft road from last 20 days and thereby caused obstructions to general public, thereby the accused committed offene punishable U/s.283 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused being the owner of the goods auto bearing registration No.KA-41- 6409 refused to comply with a notice given by Investigating officer U/sec.133 IMV act and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable U/s.187 of I.M.V.Act?
3. What order?
6C.C.No.17/2022
9. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
10. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-09-2021, the accused being the driver and owner of Piaggo Ape Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-41-6409 has parked his vehicle in front of building No.10/A of Hanumanthnagar, 50ft road from last 20 days and thereby caused obstructions to general public. In spite of repeated notices on this aspect he did not given any suitable reply and refused to receive the notice through RPAD, thereby accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/s.283 of IPC.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
7C.C.No.17/2022
12. C.W.2/ Sri Srinath is examined as P.W.1 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that he runs xerox shop. Near his shop i.e., Basavanagudi 50ft road, near 10/A building one Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41-6409 was standing from several days. Since the said vehicle was standing there it is causing obstruction to traffic movement. In this regard one Anil kumar has lodged complaint before Basavanagudi police station in the morning. In the evening police came to spot and conducted mahazar and after conducting mahazar they have seized the vehicle and taken with them. Witness identifies his signature over mahazar and identifies the vehicle by seeing the photos. He deposed that he has given statement to police.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that the goods vehicle was standing at a distance of 20ft from his shop. He denied the distance is 100ft. He admits there is a footpath in front of his shop. He further deposed in front of his shop there is a road and after road footpath is there. He admits when police seized the 8 C.C.No.17/2022 vehicle the said vehicle was not standing in front of his shop. He denied the suggestion that there was no obstruction to traffic due to parking of vehicle. He deposed that civil work was going at that time and since police has put boulders for construction work, the parking of vehicle is causing obstruction to movement of buses. He denied the suggestion that since it is a corona time there was no movement of bus. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.1/ Sri Anil Kumar J.R. is examined as P.W.2 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that around 2 years ago on 20-09-2021 in Hanumanthnagar 50ft road, 10th main road in front of H.No.10/A there is a turn and it is a restricted area for parking, though parking is prohibited one goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-416409 was parked from last two months. He further alleged that during night time the drinkers used to sit in the said vehicle due to which it was causing obstruction to general public. In this regard he along with others went to Basavanagudi police station and lodged 9 C.C.No.17/2022 compliant. The witness identifies his signature over the complaint.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he has not lodged complaint in the name of cooperative society he lodged complaint in his personal name. He denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned the place. He admits that he has not given complaint that vehicle was standing in front of his shop. He deposed that he does not remember about mentioning the date in the complaint. He further deposed he given complaint since public was facing inconvenience. He denied the suggestions that he lodged false complaint since he had ill will towards accused.
14. C.W.3 / Sri Basavaraju is examined as P.W.3 who is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 20-09-2021 police came near Hanumanthnagar 50ft road, Axis ATM they came at around 4.00 p.m. they asked him become mahazar witness. Police conducted spot examination in front of him at that time one Goods auto bearing registration No.KA-41-6409 was standing there police 10 C.C.No.17/2022 conducted mahazar and later due to parking of the auto it is causing obstruction to general traffic and directed to remove the vehicle when vehicle was not removed from the spot they taken the vehicle, police concocted the said process between 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. in front of him and obtained his signature over the same. He identified the signature on mahazar.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he admits he is a auto driver, he knows accused from last 10 years, he denied that at the time of mahazar there was corona restrictions. He admits accused was parking his vehicle at that spot from 10 years, further deposed during evening hours it is causing obstruction to traffic, hence he was directed to remove the vehicle. He admits that the luggage auto has a width of 4ft and the said road is 50ft. He admits it is a one way road. He denied the suggestion that the auto is not causing obstruction to movement of traffic. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.7/ Sri Rajendra Prasad C. is examined as P.W.4 who is the 2nd Investigation Officer 11 C.C.No.17/2022 of this case. He deposed that on 20-09-2021 he received the case file from C.W.6 and conducted further investigation. On the same day he visited the spot mentioned in the complaint wherein he saw one vehicle was parked in the road which is causing obstruction to the smooth movement of the traffic. Hence he invited C.W.2 and 3 and given notice to them about conducting spot mahazar. Later on consent of them he conducted spot mahazar between 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. and later he recorded the statement of C.W.2 and 3 in police station. On next day he collected details of the owner of the goods vehicle and intimated to issue notice U/s.133 the concerned staff intimated him that the owner of the vehicle was in city. On 23-09-2021 he handed over the notice to owner of the vehicle on the same day. Since he got the number of the owner he intimated the details of the notice through whatsapp message as well for which the owner replied he will take care of those things in court. He has further messaged that he has no place for parking in his house and he will park his vehicle in the road only and he used to pay road tax and refused to remove the said vehicle from the spot.
12C.C.No.17/2022 Hence on 24-09-2021 he visited spot and invited C.W.4 and 5 as mahazar witness in order to facilitate smooth movement of traffic in the presence of C.W.4 and 5 he conducted seizure mahazar and seized the alleged vehicle and brought the same to police station and intimated the same to the owner of the vehicle through whatshapp messages for which owner replied good job. On 04-10-2021 the owner of the alleged vehicle appeared before him in police station he issued Sec.91 Cr.P.C. notice to him asking him to produce the documents of the vehicle. Later he issued 2nd notice to owner to produce documents for which the owner replied the said alleged sections are not applicable to instant case and endorsed the same on the notice. He once again issued 3rd notice to the owner through RPAD and the same was refused by the concerned person. On 06-12-2021 he once again issued notice for which the owner did not reply and appeared before him and not produced any documents. Hence since he has committed the offences punishable U/s.283 of IPC and motor vehicles act. He has furnished final report to the 13 C.C.No.17/2022 court. He identified the documents present in the record and got marked them.
During his cross-examination by the accused he admits the suggestion that case was registered under section 283 of IPC. He denied the suggestion that there is a option for parking the vehicle by the side of footpath. He further stated it is a no parking zone. The accused put suggestion that during that period there was a order from central government that during that period there should not be any checking of documents or summoning of documents from vehicle owners for which witness replied he has no knowledge of such order. The witness admits the suggestion that he seized the vehicle on 24th. He denied the suggestion that as per the provisions of motor vehicles act if vehicle is parked in no parking zone the police has no power to seize the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he has illegally registered false case. He denied the suggestion that the alleged offences will get attracted only if vehicle involved in accident. The witness deposed that in what manner the notices were sent to him. The witness denied 14 C.C.No.17/2022 that there is no option for seizing of vehicle by police for violation of motor vehicles act. Witness further stated complaint was lodged the owner of the vehicle was not responding. Hence in order to facilitate smooth movement of traffic he has seized the vehicle. Accused put suggestion that he used to park the vehicle in the said spot from last 10 years and it is not causing obstruction to public for which witness repleid he has received complaint and intimated the owner to remove the vehicle, since it is not complied he has seized the vehicle. He has questioned about the not mentioning of address of complaint for which witness answered they personally visited police station and lodged complaint and they have to take action on the received complaint. Witness further denied the suggestion that there is no option to seize the vehicle parked in front of shop unless the shop owner complains the same. He denied the suggestions of the accused.
16. C.W.6/ Sri Shivakumar is examined as P.W.5 who is the 1st Investigation Officer of this case. He deposed that while he was on SHO duty. On 20- 15 C.C.No.17/2022 09-2021 C.W.1 came to the police station and lodged written complaint, upon receiving the same he registered the case in Crime No.56/21 against the accused and forwarded the FIR To the court and senior officers. For further investigation he handed over the case file to C.W.7.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he admits the date, address and from how many days the vehicle was parked in the said spot is not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that he has received incomplete complaint. He denied the suggestion that he was suppose to refuse the said complaint. He denied the suggestion that in order to harass the accused he has lodged false complaint. He denied the suggestions of the accused.
17. C.W.4/ Sri Abhivarna is examined as P.W.6 who is the seizure mahazar witness of this case. On 24-09-2021 police intimated him that in Hanumanthnagar 50ft road near 9th main one goods auto was parked in road, in spite of directions to remove the auto the owner has not removed the same, hence they have seized the vehicle in his 16 C.C.No.17/2022 presence and taken the vehicle to police station and they obtained his signature on one document. Witness identifies his signature over the seizure mahazar.
During his cross-examination by the accused he deposed that he does business, accused also drives auto in the said area. The witness admits accused used to stop the vehicle in the said spot from several years. He deposed that when he saw the auto it was on 9th main and from there police taken the auto. He denied the suggestion that police taken the vehicle by calling a mechanic and opening the door. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false facts.
18. C.W.5/ Sri Chakravarthi is examined as P.W.7 who is the seizure mahazar witness of this case. On 24-01-2021 at around 11.00 a.m. when he visited Hanumanthnagar 9th cross corner one Ape vehicle was standing there, his shop in 10 th cross police came there and enquired about the owner of the auto, I told them it belongs to one Jayaram, police told him he has not removed the vehicle and hence they will take the vehicle and asked him to put 17 C.C.No.17/2022 signature, he agreed. Later prepared one document and obtained his signature, police taken the said vehicle to police station and they have done the same between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. witness identifies his signature over seizure mahazar.
During his cross-examination by the accused he admits that his shop is below Raju Dental clinic and his shop comes between 8th cross and 9th cross. He admits the suggestion that the auto was parked in 9th cross in front of seat cover shop. He deposed he was residing there from 24 years. He further deposed the accused also reside from 14-15 years. He admits usually accused park his vehicle at that spot. He deposed that he does not know whether police taken the vehicle with the help of other vehicle or brought mechanic and taken the same. He denied the suggestions of the accused.
19. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.2 is the Complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.4 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.5 is the police notice, Ex.P.6 is the police notice, Ex.P.7 is the police notice, Ex.P.8 is the 18 C.C.No.17/2022 police notice, Ex.P.9 is the police notice, Ex.P.10 is the police notice, Ex.P.11 is the IMV Report and Ex.P.12 is the FIR.
20. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused being the driver of the Piaggio Ape Goods auto bearing registration No.KA- 41-6409 stopped his vehicle in a public way causing obstruction to general public and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s.283 of IPC. After registration of case the concerned IO has issued Sec.133 notice to accused on 23-09-2021 for which the accused has not given reply in the prescribed manner and did not comply the directions of the accused. In spite of issuance of 5 police notices hence committed the offences punishable U/s.187 of M.V.Act.
21. Sec.283 of Indian Penal code speaks as follows:
Section 283:- Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation:
Whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public 19 C.C.No.17/2022 line of navigation, shall be punished, with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
22. In order to constitute an offence U/s.283 of IPC there must be any act or omission to take care with regard to any property which causes danger or obstruction or any injury to any person in a public way. The prosecution has to establish accused being the custodian of the articles or object has caused obstructions to public in a public way.
23. Here the prosecution has the burden to establish the accused being the custodian of the alleged goods auto bearing registration No.KA-41- 6094 parked the said vehicle in a public way which caused obstruction to general public. In order to prove the said aspects the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 7. Among them P.W.1 is the eye witness, P.W.2 is the complainant, P.W.3 and 6 are the spot mahazar witnesses, P.W.4 is the investigating officer who conducted investigation, P.W.5 is the police constable who received complaint and registered case and P.W.7 is the seizure mahazar witness.
20C.C.No.17/2022
24. P.W.1 claims himself as eye witness and he deposed near his shop in front of 10A building the goods auto was parked from several days and in view of the said goods auto it is causing obstruction to movement of traffic. Though he was subjected to cross-examination he denied the suggestion that there is no obstruction to general traffic due to parking of vehicle. He further deposed that the road construction work was going on small stones were put there in view of the goods auto it is causing obstruction to movement of buses the said aspect was not denied by the accused or his counsel. P.W.2 is the complainant who also deposed about parking of goods auto in a no parking zone from two months. He further stated in the said auto during night hours people used to have alcohol due to which the public is facing grievance hence he has given complaint. He denied the suggestion that there is no obstruction to general public and no illegal activity was taken place in the auto. Apart from that nothing with regard to offence is questioned to witness. P.W.3 and 6 are the spot mahazar witnesses, they also deposed about parking of goods auto at that spot. They deposed in 21 C.C.No.17/2022 cross-examination about obstruction to general public. Though they denied about the suggestions of the accused denying the case of the prosecution nothing worthful to the case of the accused is elicited from their mouth. The accused himself suggest that it is a one way road and he himself suggest to witness it is a Hanumanthnagar 50ft main road. P.W.7 is the seizure mahazar witness who also deposed that the auto was parked in the road and police seized the same in their presence. The accused did not dispute the seizure he himself suggested about the manner of seizure to the witness. If those factors are taken into consideration the accused admits parking of vehicle in the road and seizure of vehicle by police.
25. P.W.4 is the investigating officer who conducted investigation he also deposed that the auto was parked in the road and it is a no parking area. The accused during cross-examination has suggested that he parked the vehicle in the said road and he even suggest that he is parking the said vehicle from several years at that spot. He himself suggest the date about seizure of vehicle and he did 22 C.C.No.17/2022 not deny the issuance of 133 notice to him. He suggested on issuance of notice under Cr.P.C. rather than denying the case of the prosecution.
26. In the case on hand in order to constitute an offence U/s.283 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that an object is placed in a public way and it is causing obstruction to general public. Here the auto belongs to accused person is not in dispute since accused himself admits that it belongs to him. The said auto was parked in Hanumanthnagar 50ft road near building 10/A. It is also not disputed by the accused. The accused in the case on hand it is not disputing of parking of vehicles he has not disputed that it is not a no parking zone. The photos produced by the prosecution clearly shows that there is a construction work was going on the said road and there is existence of curve near the place of parking. Upon perusal of photographs it is clear that the auto is parked on the said road. Upon perusal of sketch map as per Ex.P.3 it is clear that the persons coming from 9th main has to take left turn and auto is parked near the said curve. Since accused himself suggested that it is a main road and it is a one way 23 C.C.No.17/2022 road the person coming from 9th main has to compulsorily take left turn. The accused is not disputing it is one way road, if one way road is prescribed by the traffic police then the said decision is made is with an intention to ease the traffic. One way road indicates the movement of traffic is more when compare to other roads of the locality. Further the said road is 50ft road and police inspector claims it is a no parking zone. The accused has not disputed the no parking zone.
27. In the case on hand the accused while submitting arguments contended that for parking of vehicles the police cannot file case under sec.283 of IPC in practical IPC it's not at all applicable to the case on hand and they have to file the case under the provisions of IMV act. Hence the filing of charge sheet itself is not tenable under IPC. In this regard I like to rely on the decision of the apex court in State of Arunachala Pradesh Vs. Ramachandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas. 2019 (10) SCC 75, wherein the Hon'ble apex court has dealt the issue of conflicting jurisdiction between IPC and IMV act and the Hon'ble 24 C.C.No.17/2022 apex court has held "In our view there is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the MV Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other. The penal consequences provided under both the statutes are also independent and distinct from each other. The ingredients of offences under the both statutes, as discussed earlier, are different, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law, has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and M.V. Act." As per the verdict of the apex court the contention of the accused about non applicability of IPC is not tenable, if the ingredients of the alleged offence is made out then the provisions of IPC is clearly applicable. In the same judgement the hon'ble apex court even discussed the general clauses as well wherein at para No.8 the court held section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides, "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence." It is well settled that an act or an omission can constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, be an offence under any other law. The court has the 25 C.C.No.17/2022 option to act under any of the one law. Hence the contention of accused raised during arguments is not tenable.
28. As discussed earlier in order to attract Sec.283 IPC, there should be a clear and cogent material to disclose that obstruction was caused to any person in public way. In this case as well the complainant P.W.2, eye witness P.W.1 and mahazar witnesses P.W.3 and 5 clearly deposed that due to parking of the vehicle in the said road it is causing obstruction to general public. The P.W.1 clearly deposed about civil construction work in the said road, the photos of the spot supports the said contention and accused also not disputed the same. Since there is a construction work parking of vehicle at that spot will cause obstruction. P.W.1 also deposed about due to parking of vehicle in the said road it is caused obstruction for turning of the buses. The said aspect is also not disputed by the accused. The prosecution in the instant case has cited independent witnesses and all of them deposed in clarity that due to parking of the vehicles it is causing obstruction to general public. Even the 26 C.C.No.17/2022 statement of the police constables and Inspector deposed about causing obstruction. The independent witness also made it clear that due to accused vehicle it is causing obstruction to the vehicles in the said road. So in effect there is clear and cogent material to disclose that obstruction was caused to general public in the public way due to the alleged parking of goods auto by accused person. So the offence under Sec.283 IPC is made out by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
29. In the case on hand the prosecution further alleged that the accused being the owner of the alleged auto did not comply the notice issued U/s.133 of IMV Act. Hence the same attracts the offence punishable U/s.187 of M.V.Act. Here the accused contended that Sec.133 is not applicable to him, since it relates to accidents and has no application to no parking cases. He relied on the heading of Sec.187 which speaks about punishment for offences relating to accident.
30. In the case on hand the investigating officer after registration of the case has issued 27 C.C.No.17/2022 Sec.133 notice on 23-09-2021, the same was received by accused. Since he has endorsed the same. The accused did not comply the said notice by providing the reply. The accused in the cross-examination of investigating officer has put suggestions that he has received the notice and contended the said notice is not tenable in the case on hand. In the case on hand when accused did not reply the Sec.133 notice he has issued police notice on 08-11-2021 i.e., through physical mode and on the same day he has issued 2nd notice through RPAD, on 20-11-2021 he issued 3rd notice through RPAD, on 03-12-2021 he issued 4th notice and he issued notice through speed post as well the same was refused by the accused. The investigating officer even speaks about intimating the same through whatsapp as well, the accused did not dispute the communication of notices and he contended that is not the mode of issuing notices. The contention of the accused that Sec.133 is applicable only in accident case is not tenable. Sec.133 reads as follows: Sec.133 ; Duty of owner of motor vehicle to give information:- The owner of a motor vehicle, the driver or conductor of which is accused of any 28 C.C.No.17/2022 offence under this act shall, on demand of any police officer authorized in this behalf by the state government, give all information regarding the name and address of, and the license held by, the driver or conductor which is in his possession or could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by him. As per the plain reading of the section any person who is authorized by the state government may summon a owner, the driver or conductor to provide information with regard to name and address and the license. As per the provision there shall be an offence accused under this act then any police officer can issue notice U/s.133, when notice is issued it is the duty of the owner of a Motor Vehicle which is involved in any offence to give all information regarding the name and address of and the license held by the driver or the conductor on demand by any Police Officer. In the case on hand as well when police issued Sec.133 notice on 23-09-2021 with regard to stopping of vehicles from last 20 days and lodging of complaint regarding the same he has sought for details of the driver, license RC book, insurance and other documents. As per the provision the accused upon receipt of notice has to give information, here the contention that no offence is registered under the 29 C.C.No.17/2022 provisions of motor vehicle act is not tenable normally police after receiving the reply and perusing the documents will fix the liability of offences punishable under the motor vehicles act, it is like a process of issuing summons.
31. In the case on hand as well P.W.4 had summoned the accused under section 133 of MV Act for which he has not replied. In the notice averments the P.W.4 has sought for just production of document and information regarding vehicles and he has intimated about the nature of case lodged against the vehicle. As discussed earlier it is just an attempt to summon the accused to have the witness to record his statement. Production of the same is sufficient. When a document is produced, the notice was duly complied. But here the accused has not complied the same. Then the said compliance is not made what it attracts, it invites punishment and the same is provided in Sec.187 of IMV Act which reads as follows:
Sec.187 of IMV Act: punishment for offences relating to accident:- Whoever fails to comply with the provisions of clause 1[(a)] of sub-section (1) of section 132 or section 133 or 30 C.C.No.17/2022 section 134 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[six months], or with fine 3[of five thousand rupees], or with both or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, he is again convicted of an offence under this section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4[one year], or with fine 5[of ten thousand rupees], or with both.
32. As per the provisions of motor vehicles act if Sec.133 notice is not complied it attracts Sec.187 which is punishment clause for violation of the said provision. Accused in the case on hand by reading the heading of the said provision contended that it is related to accident and in the case on hand no accident has taken place and the same is not applicable. The said contention is not tenable. Sec.187 is housed in chapter XIII which speaks about offences, penalties and procedure which is a general chapter with regard to offences penalties and the procedure to be adopted in imposing penalties. Whereas Sec.133 is housed in chapter VIII which relates to control of traffic. Sec.133 speaks about summoning for production of information and documents by police officer and the same is done in this case and non compliance of the same will attract Sec.187, the contention of the accused is not tenable. In the case on hand the issuance of notice U/s.133 of 31 C.C.No.17/2022 IMV Act and seeking similar information under sec.91 of Cr.P.C. is duly proved by the prosecution, though the accused has received multiple notices he has not given reply to the same. Non compliance of notice under IMV act is a punishable offence and the prosecution is alleged that accused has committed the same. In the case on hand the accused himself voluntarily admits he has received notices and he did not whisper anything about giving reply to the same. The accused in his argument contended about existence of government circular with regard to not seeking any documents from vehicle owners. Though he contended about the same the IO In his cross- examination has denied the same. Then it is the burden of the accused to establish about existence of such circular to take exemption after recording 313 statement the accused did not whisper anything and did not opt to choose to lead any defence evidence. Unless production of circular the accused cannot take defence under the same. The prosecution has to establish they have issued notice and it was duly served to accused, the same is established beyond reasonable doubt and since accused did not given 32 C.C.No.17/2022 any suitable reply it attracts the punishment clause i.e., 187 of IMV ACT.
33. The contention of the accused that he used to park his vehicle at the same spot and government has not provided him the place for parking, his contention of yellow board vehicle is not tenable, since that is related to policy making of the government, if he has a grievance he has not address the same before appropriate government. In the instant case the court has to look into whether the accused has committed the alleged offences, whether prosecution has made out its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears true. The accused is not successful in establishing his case on the other hand the prosecution is successful in establishing that accused has committed the offences punishable U/s.283 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN AFFIRMATIVE.
33C.C.No.17/2022
34. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(2) of Criminal procedure code, the accused is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec.283 of IPC, Sec.187 of M.V.Act.
The accused is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offences punishable U/s.283 of IPC. In default he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
Accused is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable U/s.187 of IMV Act. In default he shall undergo SI for 3 months.
The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of August 2024.) (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court -IV), BENGALURU.34
C.C.No.17/2022 ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Sri Srinath P.W.2: Sri Anil Kumar J.R. P.W.3: Sri Basavaraju P.W.4: Rajendra Prasad C. P.W.5: Sri Shivakumar P.W.6: Sri Abhivarna P.W.7: Chakravarthi
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Spot mahazar Ex.P.2: Complaint Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4: 133 notice Ex.P.5: Police notice Ex.P.6: Police notice Ex.P.7: Police notice Ex.P.8: Police notice Ex.P.9: Police notice Ex.P.10: Police notice Ex.P.11: IMV Report Ex.P.12: FIR
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court -IV), BENGALURU.
35 C.C.No.17/2022