Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Garg on 16 February, 2018
CA No.08/18
State vs Rohit Garg
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPL. JUDGE,
(PC ACT), CBI 03, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI
CA No. 08/18
ID No.37/18
CNR No.DLSW010022112018
State vs Rohit Garg
Rohit Garg
(aged about 27 years)
S/o Sh. Suresh Garg
R/o A1, BockC, Yadav Park,
Nangloi, New Delhi - 110 041 ... Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi ... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 27.01.2018
Date on which judgment reserved : 16.02.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced : 16.02.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict u/s 375 (B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Page: 1/6 CA No.08/18 State vs Rohit Garg Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 25.12.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the ld.trial court whereby the appellant/convict has been found guilty of offence u/s 3/181, 115/190 (2) and 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act). The ld.trial court has sentenced the appellant/convict to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 days and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/ for the offence u/s 3/181, 115/190 (2) and 185 MV Act, a fine of Rs.1,000/ on the owner u/s.5/180 MV Act.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant/convict was found to be driving a private vehicle and when the vehicle of the appellant was stopped by the concerned traffic police officials and was checked by Breath Alcohol Analysis Test, the alcohol content in his blood was found to be 194.4 mg/100 ml which was found to be extremely Page: 2/6 CA No.08/18 State vs Rohit Garg higher than the permissible limit i.e. 30 mg/100 ml.
3. The appellant/convict voluntarily pleaded guilty and accordingly, based upon the plea of guilt of appellant/convict, he was convicted vide impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.
4. I have heard the ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. counsel for appellant/convict. I have also summoned the trial court record and have perused the same.
5. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for appellant/convict has submitted that this is the first offence of the appellant/convict u/s 185 of the MV Act. It is also submitted by him that appellant was having a valid driving license but the same could not be produced before the police on the date of the offence. He has brought the driving license of the convict, copy of which has been filed on record. It is further submitted that having regard to the fact that appellant is aged about 27 Page: 3/6 CA No.08/18 State vs Rohit Garg years, is having the responsibility of his wife, 04 years old son and parents and is the sole bread earner of his family and if sent to jail, social reputation of appellant shall be completely ruined and putting the appellant in the company of hardcore criminals in jail may spoil his entire life. It is also submitted that imprisonment of appellant would leave a scar on his life, which would adversely affect his child's career. Therefore, appellant/convict deserves to be treated leniently and he should be extended the benefit of probation. Accordingly, it is prayed that impugned order imposing punishment of 02 days simple imprisonment u/s 185 MV Act, is unjustified and unwarranted and accordingly, he has sought setting aside of impugned order.
6. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that appellant was found driving a private vehicle in heavily drunk condition. It is further submitted by him that already the ld.trial Page: 4/6 CA No.08/18 State vs Rohit Garg court has taken a lenient view and no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Accordingly, he has made a prayer for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. counsel for appellant. It is an admitted case of the parties that this is the first offence of the appellant u/s 185 MV Act. The appellant was having a valid driving license, copy of which has been produced on record. In the facts and circumstances, appellant deserves to be given a chance for reformation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.12.2017 is accordingly set aside. The appellant is given the benefit of probation and is directed to file a personal bond of good behaviour and conduct in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the ld.trial court for a period of six months with the condition that he shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer, Dwarka Page: 5/6 CA No.08/18 State vs Rohit Garg Court for six months and shall report before the Probation Officer once in a month and shall not commit similar offence during this period of six months and if any such offence is brought to the notice of the ld.trial court during this period of six months, then ld.trial court will be at liberty to impose appropriate sentence upon the appellant u/s 185 MV Act.
8. Trial court record be sent back to ld. Trial court alongwith a copy of this judgment.
9. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull) Dated : 16.02.2018 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI03 Dwarka/New Delhi Page: 6/6