Delhi District Court
Bhura Singh vs The State on 11 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI, ASJ(FTSC)
(RC) SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW01-001058-2020
CA No. 39/2020
Bhura Singh
S/o Sh. Billa Singh
R/o Village Rouni URF Saloni,
PO Wair, PS Kakore, T-Sikandrabad,
District Bullandshahar, UP-203202
....Appellant
Vs.
The State ....Respondent
Date of institution of case : 28.01.2020
Date on which judgment reserved : 11.03.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 11.03.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under section 375 (b) Cr. P.C. passed against the order of conviction and order on sentence dated 15.12.2019 passed by the court of Ms. Paridhi Gupta, Ld. M.M.- (Traffic), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in traffic challan No. DCC- 0912-1608-2019, Circle DCC, Vehicle bearing No. RJ-18PA- 4903 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 185 M.V. Act and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 12,000/- in total and further sentenced to SI for three days for the offence punishable under section 185 M.V. Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/accused was found driving a vehicle i.e. bus in a drunken state on 14.12.2019 CA No. 39/2020 Bhura Singh Vs. State 1 of 6 at 8.34 pm and disobeying directions of law and on checking the alcohol content in the blood of the appellant/accused was found to be 104mg/100 ml in the breath alcohol analysis test.
3. Cognizance was taken by the Ld. MM vide order dated 15.12.2019. The accusation was explained to the appellant/ accused to which he pleaded guilty vide STR entry No. 7. On his plea of guilt, the appellant/accused was convicted. After having heard on the point of sentence, the appellant/ accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 12,000/- in total and further sentenced to SI for three days for the offence punishable under section 185 MV Act.
4. The accused/appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 15.12.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court on the grounds that the accused/appellant pleaded guilty without knowing his right of trial as the right was not asked from him by the Ld. M.M. It is averred that accused/appellant is a young person of 27 years and company of hardcore criminals in Jail will spoil his entire life. It is averred that this is the first offence of the accused/appellant and the quantity of alcohol is not as much as it was shown by the concerned police, however, is not so high to which the accused/appellant may be sentenced to 3 days SI and fine of Rs. 12,000/-. The accused/appellant had already pleaded guilty and had paid the total fine of Rs. 12,000/- on 15.12.2019.
5. It is pertinent to note that on 04.02.2020 the present appeal was admitted and the appellant/accused was admitted to CA No. 39/2020 Bhura Singh Vs. State 2 of 6 bail on furnishing bail bonds, however, till date the appellant/accused has not furnished the bail bonds. Record reflects that since 14.07.2020, accused/appellant has failed to appear before this court, despite giving ample opportunities to the appellant/accused and even after the issuance of NBW against the appellant/accused. NBWs against the appellant/ accused were reported back unexecuted with the report that appellant/accused is not residing at the given address. The Court notice was also issued to the Ld. Counsel for the appellant but none has appeared for the appellant/accused. In these circumstances, this court proceeded to hear the appeal.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the accused/appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced for drunken driving sections of MV Act.
7. In the present case, the accused/appellant has voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offences and his plea of guilt is recorded at entry No. 7 of the Summary Trial Register maintained in the court of Ld. Trial Court. Accused/appellant was explained the accusations against him to which he has voluntarily pleaded guilty. The same is recorded in the proceedings conducted by the Ld. M.M. on 15.12.2019. The proceedings conducted in the course of official duties are presumed to be correct, unless such presumption is rebutted by some cogent evidence.
8. As per section 375 Cr. P.C., the accused/appellant does CA No. 39/2020 Bhura Singh Vs. State 3 of 6 not have any right to appeal as he has been convicted on his voluntary plea of guilt. Therefore, this court finds no illegality, infirmity or error in the impugned order dated 15.12.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court regarding the conviction.
9. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the Ld. Trial Court after considering the facts that the level of alcohol found in the blood of the convict was 104mg/100 ml which is higher than the permissible limit of 30 mg/100 ml and that severe punishment ought to be imposed upon the convict to achieve the deterrent effect in the society and also that though maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under section 185 MV Act is six months imprisonment but considering the interest of justice and the situation of the convict, the accused/appellant was sentenced to to pay fine of Rs. 12,000/- in total and further sentenced to SI for three days for the offence punishable under section 185 M.V. Act.
10. A drunkard driver are potential danger to the society. India accounts for the highest number of deaths in road accident cases and driving a vehicle in drunken state accounts for the majority of the said accidents. A drunkard driver is a menace on the over crowded roads of Delhi. The driver of motor vehicles are expected to be alert to the emergent contingencies which may arise on the road and he cannot be expected to lower his guard of reflexes. The consumption of alcohol impacts the senses of a person which results in delayed responses and reflexes which results in serious and fatal accident. Thus, it is rightly said that CA No. 39/2020 Bhura Singh Vs. State 4 of 6 the drunken driver is injurious to his own life as well as to the life of innocent road users. There has to be a zero tolerance for drunken driving and such cases should be dealt with stern hands for flashing proper message in the society.
11. In the appeal, the appellant/accused has contended that he is a young person of 27 years and driver by profession. It is contended that appellant/accused is the sole bread earner of his family having liability of his wife, three minor children and old parents fully dependent upon him.
12. This court has considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and this court is of the considered opinion that the accused/appellant does not deserve any further leniency. Ld. Trial Court has considered the fact that the case is not fit to be dealt under section 360 Cr. P.C. or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Ld Trial Court after considering that the maximum punishment under section 185 MV Act is six months imprisonment, however, considering the interest of justice and also considering the situation of accused/appellant the Ld. Trial Court has passed sentence of simple imprisonment of 3 days and fine of Rs. 12,000/-.
13. This court is of the view that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The same does not call for any interference. The impugned order is elaborate and well reasoned and the same is accordingly upheld. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
CA No. 39/2020Bhura Singh Vs. State 5 of 6
14. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of the judgment to the Ld. Trial Court for taking appropriate steps for executing the sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2019 upon the accused/appellant.
15. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after completing the necessary formalities.
Pronounced in open court 11th March, 2022 (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (RC) South West District: Dwarka Courts:
New Delhi CA No. 39/2020 Bhura Singh Vs. State 6 of 6