Delhi District Court
State vs Mr. Mayank Lhila on 12 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARADHANA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS (DIGITAL TRAFFIC COURT), SOUTH EAST COURTS,
NEW DELHI
State Vs. Mayank Lhila
TC No.16163/2024
E-challan Details: 61132087 -- DL3CDA3458
U/s 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
1 CNR Number : DLSE02-042310-2024
2 Name of the accused, parentage & : Mayank Lhila, S/o Sh. Rajesh
residential address
Kumar Lhila, R/o H.No.E-95,
3rd Floor, Greater Kailash-III,
New Delhi-110048.
3 Offence complained of or proved : 184 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
4 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5 Final Judgment : Acquitted
6 Date of judgment : 12.08.2024
Date of Institution : 02.08.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 12.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 12.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Judgment, this court shall dispose off challan bearing TC No.16163/2024, E-challan Details: 61132087 -- DL3CDA3458 of vehicle bearing Registration No. DL3CDA3458 dt. 11.07.2024 against Mayank Lhila, S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Lhila, 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 accused jumped the red light while driving the Vehicle bearing No.DL3CDA3458 on 11.07.2024, at about 08:10 PM, at Moolchand from India Gate Right, within the jurisdiction of Lajpat Nagar Traffic Circle, thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 184 of M.V. Act, 1988.
TC No.16163/2024State VS. Mayank Lhila Page No. 1 of 4 (Aradhana /JMFC, (Digital Traffic Court)/SED/12.08.2024) Digitally signed by ARADHANA ARADHANA Date:
2024.08.12 16:28:20 +0530
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 Pranav Chomplay, entered his first appearance on 05.08.2024. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against him on 05.08.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the statement u/s 251 Cr.P.C., it has been stated that the vehicle shown in the violation report is No.DL-3CDA-3459, whereas the vehicle owned by the accused bears the registration No.No.DL-3CDA-3458. It was thus submitted that accused had not committed any offence in contravention to the provisions of the M.V. Act.
5. On behalf of the Prosecution, PW-1 ASI Vikram Singh had come to depose before the court who had stated that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.DL-3CDA-3458 jumped the red light at Moolchand from India Gate Right, within the jurisdiction of Lajpat Nagar Traffic Circle. However, it was admitted that the actual violating vehicle is No.DL-3CDA-3459 instead of DL-3CDA-3458. There was a misreading by the camera of '9' as '8'.
6. On examination U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the allegations and stated the same defence as at the time of framing of notice and stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence.
Appreciation of Evidence led before the Court:
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties as well as the materials placed on record before this court.
TC No.16163/2024State VS. Mayank Lhila Page No. 2 of 4 (Aradhana /JMFC, (Digital Traffic Court)/SED/12.08.2024) Digitally signed by ARADHANA ARADHANA Date:
2024.08.12 16:28:31 +0530
8. The relevant provision, a violation of which have been alleged in the instant case is Section 184 of the M.V. Act which makes jumping the red light while driving a vehicle, an offence punishable in law.
9. Coming to the present traffic challan, in order to prove the commission of the offence, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of witness PW-1 ASI Vikram Singh and the violation report (Ex.PW1/A).
10. At the foremost it is important to state that it is a well settled principle of law that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has relied upon the violation report which is Ex.PW1/A and the oral testimony of PW-1 ASI Vikram Singh. The prosecution has submitted that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.DL-3CDA-3458 jumped the red light at Moolchand from India Gate Right, within the jurisdiction of Lajpat Nagar Traffic Circle, New Delhi. However, it is also admitted by the witness that there was a misreading by the camera of '9' as '8'. The actual violating vehicle number is DL-3CDA-3459 instead of DL-3CDA-3458.
11. Before delving any further, it becomes important to discuss the legal provisions attracted to the present traffic challan. Section 184 makes jumping the red light while driving a motor vehicle, an offence punishable with a fine of rupees not less than Rs.1,000/- but may extend to Rs.5,000/-.
12. Now, coming to the present traffic challan, the prosecution has issued the challan against the Vehicle No.DL-3CDA-3458 for jumping the red light. However, it is the defence of the accused that the offending vehicle as per the violation report is DL-3CDA-3459, whereas the vehicle owned by the accused bears the registration No.DL-3CDA-3458. Hence, the accused has denied all the TC No.16163/2024 State VS. Mayank Lhila Page No. 3 of 4 (Aradhana /JMFC, (Digital Traffic Court)/SED/12.08.2024) Digitally signed by ARADHANA ARADHANA Date:
2024.08.12 16:28:42 +0530 allegations made against him and has stayed consistent in his defence throughout the trial.
13. Further, it has been admitted by the prosecution witness that the registration number of the actual offending vehicle is DL-3CDA- 3459 instead of DL-3CDA-3458. It was also admitted that there was a misreading by the camera of '9' as '8'.
14. In view of the afore-mentioned reasons, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, it can be stated that all of the ingredients of the alleged offence do not stand satisfied before this court.
Conclusion
15. In the light of these circumstances, the accused in the present case stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
16. This judgment contains 04 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the digital signature of the undersigned.
17. Let a copy of this judgment be uploaded on the Official Website of District Courts, Saket forthwith.
Announced in open court on 12.08.2024.
Digitally signed by ARADHANAARADHANA Date:
2024.08.12 16:28:51 +0530 (ARADHANA) JMFC, Digital Traffic Court South East District, Saket, New Delhi/ 12.08.2024 TC No.16163/2024 State VS. Mayank Lhila Page No. 4 of 4 (Aradhana /JMFC, (Digital Traffic Court)/SED/12.08.2024)