Delhi District Court
State vs Arihant Kumar Jain on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUNAL SONI:
DIGITAL TRAFFIC COURT, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
TC No. 2276/2024
STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN
E-challan Details: DL127279240715192105
Vehicle No. DL5SCD0625
1 CNR Number : DLET020127342024
2 Name of the accused, parentage & residential address : Arihant Kumar Jain S/o
Sh. Gautam Chand Jain,
R/o C-42/2, Gali No. 6,
Rajgarh Colony,
Gandhi Nagar, North-
East-110031.
3 Offence complained of or proved : Section 184, Motor
Vehicle Act 1988
4 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5 Final Judgment : Acquittal
6 Date of Judgment : 31.01.2026
Date of Institution : 12.08.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 07.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement Judgment : 31.01.2026
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Sakshi Goyal, Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Judgment, this court shall dispose off challan bearing TC No. 2276/2024, Challan No. DL127279240715192105 of vehicle Bearing Registration No. DL5SCD0625 dt. 15.07.2024 against Arihant Kumar Jain, U/s 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V.Act").
Brief facts:
2. It is alleged against the accused that the vehicle No. DL5SCD0625 at about 19:21 Hrs on 15.07.2024, at Akshardham, within the jurisdiction of Mayur Vihar Circle, TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN Digitally (Kunal Soni) signed by JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) KUNAL KUNAL SONI Date:
(East)/KKD Courts SONI 2026.01.31
15:19:20
31.01.2026 +0530
the accused was found in violation of driving vehicle against the flow of traffic (wrong side driving) which is dangerous to the public in contravention of section 184 MV Act,1988, and the Challaning Officer proceeded to issue the challan against the accused person. The accused was found in violation of driving vehicle against the flow of traffic (wrong side driving) which is dangerous to the public, therefore, challan was proceeded against the accused person in contravention of section 184 M.V. Act within the jurisdiction of Mayur Vihar Circle, thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 184 of M.V. Act.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the cognizance of the offence had already been taken by Virtual Traffic Court and a fine was proposed for the summary disposal of the case under Section 208 of the M.V. Act. The accused exercised the option to contest the present challan on the web portal of virtual traffic court pursuant to which the challan was transferred to this court for adjudication as per law.
Proceedings before the Court:
4. The accused Arihant Kumar Jain entered his first appearance on 19.05.2025 though VC and submitted that he wants to contest further.
5. Notice u/s 274 BNSS was framed against accused on 19.05.2025 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was the defence of the accused that the challan was issued to him wrongly as the main road was obstructed due to construction and there was no sign board at the given place and also there is no diversion on the part of the authorities, therefore, he had no option except to take U-turn at the place of offence.
6. Summons were issued to the concerned TI to file status report on the present challan alongwith list of witnesses and list of documents to lead prosecution evidence in the present case. HC Anuj, No. 2756/T, who was the witneess in the present case appeared on 11.07.2025 and testified for prosecution as PW-1. In his examination in chief, PW-1 deposed that:-
Digitally TC No. 2276/2024 signed by KUNAL STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN KUNAL SONI (Kunal Soni) SONI Date:
2026.01.31 JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) 15:21:37 +0530 (East)/KKD Courts 31.01.2026 "On 15.07.2024, I was posted at Mayur Vihar Circle, as HC. On that day I along with ASI Rakesh were performing our duty at Akshardham. At about 07:30 PM we found that a person was driving against the flow of traffic (wrong side driving) and ASI clicked the photograph of the said bike bearing registration no. DL5SCD0625 from his mobile phone and issued a challan no. DL127279240715192105 for driving against the flow of traffic which is contravention of section 184 of MV Act. The challan no.
DL127279240715192105 along with the status report filed by TI Mayur Vihar Circle which is Ex. PW-1/B . The challan is Ex. PW-1/A respectively.
Accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. I can identify the said bike if shown to me. At this stage, accused submits that he has brought the said bike and same is parked in the premises of the karkardooma courts.
At this stage, the Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused submits that she has not disputed regarding the identification of the said bike. The said bike is Ex. P1."
In his cross-examination, PW-1 admit that construction activity was going on near the spot and there was no sign board of construction placed at the site of construction. He also admit that he cannot produce the photographs of violation as the same was clicked by PW-2. He also admitted that U-turn was not prohibited at the spot.
7. ASI Rakesh Kumar, No. 711/T, who was the challaning officer in the present case appeared on 02.08.2025 and testified for prosecution as PW-2. In his examination in chief, PW-1 deposed that:-
"On 15.07.2024, I was posted at Mayur Vihar Circle, as ASI. On that day I along with HC Anuj were performing our duty at Akshardham. At about 07:30 PM we found that a person was driving against the flow of traffic (wrong side driving) and I clicked the photograph of the said bike bearing registration no. DL5SCD0625 from his mobile phone and issued a challan no. DL127279240715192105 for driving against the flow of traffic which is contravention of section 184 of MV Act. The challan no. DL127279240715192105 along with the status report filed by TI Mayur Vihar Circle TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN Digitally (Kunal Soni) signed by JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) KUNAL KUNAL SONI (East)/KKD Courts SONI Date:
2026.01.31 31.01.2026 15:21:52 +0530 which is already Ex. PW-1/B . The challan is already Ex. PW-1/A respectively. "
In his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that the construction acitivity was going on near the spot and there was no sign board at the site of construction. He also admit that he could not produce the photographs of violation committed by accused as the same was clicked by him but has been deleted from his phone.
8. TI Mayur Vihar Circle has filed a status report which is Ex. PW-1/B in which it is submitted that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL5SCD0625 was prosecuted through VOCA vide challan no. DL127279240715192105 on 15.07.2024, against the violation of driving against the flow of traffic by ASI Rakeh Kumar (711/T, PIS 28960972). After checking, it was found that the offending vehicle in the notice is registered in the name of Sh. Arihant Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar, R/o A-124, Block-A, 2nd Floor, Sector-8, Dwarka, South-West, Delhi. The copy of challan is Ex. PW1/A which bears the signature of accused at point A and the signature of challaning officer at point B which were admitted by both the accused and challaning officer.
No further prosecution evidence and list of witness was furnished. Thereafter, PE was closed.
9. The exmaination of the accused u/s 351 BNSS was recorded on 17.09.2025 in which he stated that at the time of issuance of challan, some construction actitvity was going on and there was no sign board of any alternative route. Due to construction activity, the U-turn on the said road was blocked therefore, I had no option except to take wrong side driving and there was no sign board of any alternative route on the part of concerned authority. I only cover 50-100 meters in wrong side and the challaing officers were present at that time and they neither show me any alternative route nor guide me regarding the said challan and thereafter issued the challan against me and he submits that he wants to lead DE.
10. In his defence evidence, the wife of accused was examined as DW-1 and in her deposition, she stated that she was going towards his house along with his husband and TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN KUNAL (Kunal Soni) SONI JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) (East)/KKD Courts Digitally signed by KUNAL SONI 31.01.2026 Date: 2026.01.31 15:22:01 +0530 they were supposed to take underpass, but due to construction activity, there was no sign board installed showing alternative route which complled them to take the wrong side. In her cross-examintion she stated that her husband was driving the said vehicle in the wrong side. Thereafter, DE was closed.
11. Ld. APP on behalf of the prosecution argued that the accused person was driving the vehicle in wrong side and the accused person has also admitted that the he was driving the vehicle in the wrong side which is also corroboarrated by the testimony of both PW-1 & PW-2 along with the status report filed by TI Mayur Vihar which is PW- 1/B, therefore, the accused person should be prosecuted for the above said offences.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused argued that the construction activity was going on near the spot and the road was blocked due to the construction, therefore, the said act was neither delibrate nor reckless, however, was done under the compelling circumstances created by construction activity and administrative lapse. She also argued that the essetinal ingredients of section 184 MV Act is not satisfied in the present case as there is no evidence of driving said vehicle which is dangerous to public. No independent witness was examined and no photographs or evidence were produced by prosecution to prove that he was driving the vehicle in the dangerous manner which can create a danger, alarm or distress to the public. She also argued that accused person was not warned. She also argued that the condition of section 209 MV Act was not fulfilled in the present case. She also argued that PW-1 admitted in his cross-exmaination that U-turn was not prohibited at the place of offence, therefore, the prosecution is failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused should be acquitted for the above said offences.
Appreciation of Evidence led before the Court:
13. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties as well as the material placed on record before this court.
TC No. 2276/2024 Digitally
signed by
STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN KUNAL
KUNAL SONI
(Kunal Soni) SONI Date:
2026.01.31
JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) 15:22:36
(East)/KKD Courts +0530
31.01.2026
14. Before delving into the facts placed before this court, it is necessary to reiterate the legal provisions. Section 184 of the M.V. Act states as follows:
" 184. Driving dangerously.-- Whoever, drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public 1[or which causes a sense of alarm or distress to the occupants of the vehicle,other road users, and persons near roads,] having regard to all the circumstances of case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term 2[which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both], and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine 3[of ten thousand rupees], or with both.
[Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section,--
(a) jumping a red light;
(b) violating a stop sign;
(c) use of handheld communications devices while driving;
(d) passing or overtaking other vehicles in a manner contrary to law;
(e) driving against the authorised flow of traffic; or
(f) driving in any manner that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and where it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that manner would be dangerous, shall amount to driving in such manner which is dangerous to the public".TC No. 2276/2024
Digitally STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN signed by KUNAL (Kunal Soni) KUNAL SONI JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) SONI Date:
2026.01.31 (East)/KKD Courts 15:24:55 31.01.2026 +0530
15. It is trite law that to impose a criminal liablity on a person, the prosecution must establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if the defence is successful in casting a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's story, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Coming to the present challan, the prosecution has alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle that he was driving his vehicle against the flow of traffic which is dangerous to the public (wrong side driving) punishable u/s 184 M.V. Act. Prosecution has examined two witnesses PW-2 challaning officer and PW-1 the witness to prove the prosecution story. The challaning officer has stated that he imposed the challan on the accused person who was driving the vehicle against the flow of traffic which is dangerous to the public (wrong side driving).
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused has raised various defence in his favour and raises a doubt on the testimony of prosecution witness. It is a cardinal principal of criminal law that prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and if defence is successful in casting a doubt in the prosecution story, then benefit of doubt must be given to accused person. For better understanding, the various grounds/defence taken by accused person will be dealt step by step.
. Essentials of section 184 MV Act.
Both the witness PW-1 & PW-2 stated in his chief that accused person was driving the vehicle against the flow of traffic which is dangerous to the public in order to prosectue him u/s 184 MV Act. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused submitted that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of section 184 MV Act. Section 184 MV Act stated that prosecution is required to establish that the vehicle was driven at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public or which causes a sense of alarm to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and the use of place where the vehicle was driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or might reasonably expected to in that place.
Both the witness i.e. PW-1 & PW-2 has not deposed in his chief that the TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN Digitally (Kunal Soni) signed by KUNAL JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) KUNAL SONI (East)/KKD Courts SONI Date:
2026.01.31 31.01.2026 15:25:12 +0530 accused person was driving the said vehicle at a very high speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public at the place of offence. Rather, the PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the accused person has only cover 50-100 meters in a wrong side which is not essential to prove that he was driving in a rash manner. Even PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the construction activity was going on at the place of offence and the U-turn was not prohibited. It can be presumed that if the construction activity was going on, then there must be some diversion of traffic by appropriate authorities in order to prevent any inconvenience caused to the public. However, both the witness in his cross-
examination admitted that there was neither any sign board nor any alternative route for general public so that they can take any divergent route. Taking into consideration that the construction activity was going on, it can be presumed that taking his vehicle in a wrong side was neither intentional nor willful rather was done purely under compelling circumstances created by construction activities and administration lapse. None of the prosecution witness have alleged any excessive speed or rash driving of the vehicle which is dangerous to the pubic even the status report is silent on speed or any aggressive driving behaviour which is the important ingredient of section 184 MV Act, therefore, the prosecution is failed to establish the essential ingredients of section 184 MV Act.
No videography or photography:-
Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused argued that no photography or videography was placed on record by prosecution in support of the abovesaid challan. Even, TI Mayur Vihar in his status report (Ex.PW-1/B) has not submitted any video or photographic evidence in support of the said challan. PW-2, the challaning officer in his chief stated that he clicked the photograph of the said vehicle from mobile phone, however, in his cross-examination he admitted that he cannot produce the photographs as the same has been deleted from his phone. Even, PW-1 stated that the photographs was taken by TC No. 2276/2024 Digitally STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN signed by KUNAL (Kunal Soni) KUNAL SONI JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) SONI Date:
2026.01.31 (East)/KKD Courts 15:25:19 31.01.2026 +0530 PW-2 from his mobile phone. The prosecution witnesses did not have any explanation as to why the photographs was not preserved by them. In the present case the video and the photograph is the important evidence in the present case. It is a cardinal duty of challaning officer/traffic police to take the video or photography of the violation and to preserve it. Even, the traffic police are well equiped with the cameras, Apps in his mobile phone so that the proper videography and photography can be taken. PW-2 was able to caputre the photo of the said vehicle, then he must preserved the evidence. In absence of any documentary or electronic evidence, it cannot be presumed that he was driving the vehicle in a rash or neglignet manner which is dangerous to the public.
Therefore, accused is successful in casting a reasonable doubt in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
Independent witness.
Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused submitted taht no independent witnesses was examined by the prosecution to prove its own case.
In case of Sanspal Singh v. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr.L. J. 19, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non joining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witness, no one was joined in the investigation.
It is a cardinal principal of law that the independent witness is not necessary at all the time while issuing the challan because no independent person at public place will be ready to give his testimony. If the prosecution is able to produce photograph or videograph which showing the violation of accused person, then there is no need to prove any independent witness. But in the absence of any photography or videography, more weightage should given to the testimony of independent witness. In the present case, prosecution has neither examine the independent witness nor prove any documentary/photo/videography to prove his own case. Therefore, prosecution has not be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as neither there is independent TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN Digitally (Kunal Soni) signed by KUNAL JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) KUNAL SONI (East)/KKD Courts SONI Date:
2026.01.31 31.01.2026 15:25:37 +0530 documentary evidence nor oral evidence in support of the Challan. The prosecution has only examined PW-2 who cannot be set to be independent witness. The justification that the photographs cannot be produced before the court are not sufficient to complete the prosecution story. The Delhi Traffic Police Officials are given specific line cameras that need to be worn and kept on while they are on duty. Thus, the justification of prosecution witness that videography or photography was deleted from his mobile phone is also not acceptable. Even TI Mayur Vihar in his status report (Ex. PW-1/B) has not placed on record any video or photographic evidence in support of the said challan.
Essentials of Section 209 MV Act.
Before delving into the facts of the case, it is important to quote section 209 of MV Act.
209. Restriction on conviction.--No person prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 183 or section 184 shall be convicted unless--
(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration, or
(b) within fourteen days from the commission of the offence, a notice specifying the nature of the offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed was served on or sent by registered post to him or the person registered as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence, or
(c) within twenty-eight days of the commission of the offence, a summons for the offence was served on him:
Provided that nothing, in this section shall apply where the Court is satisfied that--
(a) the failure to serve the notice or summons referred to in this sub-section was due to the fact that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time, or
(b) such failure was brought about by the conduct of the accused.
Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused submitted that the essential of section 209 MV Act was not fulfilled in the present case. As per section 209 MV Act, either TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN Digitally signed by (Kunal Soni) KUNAL KUNAL SONI JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) SONI Date:
2026.01.31 (East)/KKD Courts 15:25:51 +0530 31.01.2026 of the above three conditions must have been complied by the challaning officer. He should have warned the accused of the fact that the question of prosecuting accused would be taken into consideration or the challaning officer should have complied with either of the remaining two conditions of section 209 MV Act.
Section 209 MV Act further carved out two exception where the above three conditions may not be complied with. If the court is satisfied that the failure to serve the notice or summons refer u/s 209 MV Act was due to the fact that neither the name and the address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle could be reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time or such failure was brought about by the conduct of the accused.
It is a duty of prosecution to satisfy all the ingredients of section in order to prosecute the accused person. In the present case, prosecution has failed to prove the requirement of section 209 MV Act. Neither the testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 nor the status report revealed that accused person received the notice of issuance of challan within a stipulated period as per mandate of section 209 MV Act. Even the prosecution has not proved that the failure to warn the accused or to given notice/summon to the accused was in the circumstances which fall either of the above two exeception of section 209 MV Act. Even section 209 MV Act itself inter alia provides that no one can be convicted u/s 184 of MV Act, if there is a non-compliance of section 209 MV Act. In the present case, the prosecution is failed to prove the ingredients of section 209 MV Act.
17. All these infirmities cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about the commission of the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
18. From perusal of the record, arguments advanced and submissions made, it is noteworthy that in absence of any oral or documentary evidence, any independent TC No. 2276/2024 STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN Digitally signed by (Kunal Soni) KUNAL KUNAL SONI JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) SONI Date:
2026.01.31 (East)/KKD Courts 15:25:59 +0530 31.01.2026 witness to prove the guilt of the accused or failure to establish the essetial ingredients of section 184, 209 of MV Act, the prosecution story cannot be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has not denied the presence of his vehicle at the place of offence, but has raised various doubts in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The accused has been successful in raising doubts in the prosecution story to his benefit. Thus, it can be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
19. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that to prove the guilt of the accused, the burden lies on the prosecution that it must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the above discussion, it is clear that the accused has raised a reasonable doubt with respect to the prosecution version and the prosecution is failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
20. In the light of these circumstances, the accused in the present case stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
21. In light of the above, challan is disposed of accordingly. Documents impounded if any be released as per rules.
22. This judgment contains 12 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
23. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma Courts forthwith.
Announced in open court on 31.01.2026.
TC No. 2276/2024 Digitally
signed by
STATE Vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN KUNAL
KUNAL SONI
(Kunal Soni) SONI Date:
JMFC (Digital Traffic Court) 2026.01.31
15:26:11
(East)/KKD Courts +0530
31.01.2026