Delhi District Court
Inderjeet Singh vs State on 13 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
& SPECIAL JUDGE SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2016
ID No. 02406R0219042016
Inderjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Nirmal Singh,
R/o 1128, Gali No. 11, Govind Puri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi. .......... Petitioner
Vs.
State .......... Respondent
Instituted on : 28th May 2016
Argued on : 13th July 2016
Decided on : 13th July 2016
O R D E R
1 Appellant has filed the present revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the conviction order dated 03.05.2016 in Traffic Challan No. 376201590 16 in respect of vehicle i.e. Car bearing No. DL3CAW0298 (Circle SGV) New Delhi, passed by Sh. Chander Jit Singh, Ld. MM - 01 (Traffic Court), SouthEast District, New Delhi, whereby the Ld. MM after holding petitioner guilty for offences u/s 146, 196, 185, CMVR115/190(2) of MV Act upon his voluntary plea of guilt, the Ld. MM was further pleased to sentence him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ for an offence u/s 146, 196 MV Act and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo 10 days SI; he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ u/s 185 MV Act and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo 20 days SI and Rs.1,000/ u/s CMVR115/190(2) M V Act and in default of payment of fine 10 days SI. Fine was stated to have already been deposited before the Ld. Trial Court. Further the Driving Lisence of appellant was also directed to remain suspended for a period of 6 months from date of the impugned order and he was Inderjeet Singh Vs. State - CR No. 67 of 2016 1/3 also sentenced 5 days SI.
2. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the following amongst other grounds :
That the appellant is law abiding and peace loving citizen and also a law follower person and he is an educated person and belongs to a reputed family and he is working in a reputed company. It was further stated that appellant had assisted the Trial Court and he had confessed before the trial Court that he had committed the above said offences which shows respect, in the mind of the appellant. It is stated that appellant is a young person and first time offender and he is not criminal and he had committed the abovesaid offences mistakenly and he had already apologized for it and it was stated further that he is sole bread earner of his family comprising of a very small child of two months. He had also placed reliance on the citation of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, titled as "State of Gujarat v. Dinesh Chandra Harjibhai Patel" reported as 1994 Crl. LJ 1393. However, the same is not aplicable to the facts of the case as no justifiable explanation for commission of the offence has come on record on part of the petitioner. Similarly, the reliance placed on the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court, titled as "Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka", 1982 LawSuit(SC) 198. However, the ratio of the said citation is again not applicable to the facts of the present case because the said case had arisen out of the proceedings of plea bargaining and even this Court is not enhanching the sentence awarded to the appellant by the Ld. Trial Court.
3 I have heard Sh. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sh. Praveen Rahul, Ld. Addl. PP appearing for the State and gone through the material place before me.
Inderjeet Singh Vs. State - CR No. 67 of 2016 2/3 4 It has been revealed from the impugned order that the alcohol reading of the appellant was found to be 166.1 mg per 100 ml as against the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml and the the Ld. Trial Court had rightly opined that it was more than 5 times of the permissible limit, when the petitioner was riding a Car.
5 In my opinion that petitioner while riding the said vehicle under such heavy intoxication, was just acting like a suicidal human bomb, who could have taken the lives of others while driving the said vehicle in such a state of mind and even it could have also proved fatal for him as well. Hence, in the given set of facts and circumstances as appearing on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
6 However, keeping in view the submissions of the petitioner i.e. he is 35 years old and sole bread earner of his family comprising of a very small child of two months and being the first offender, it seems that ends of justice shall be met, if he is sentenced to undergo two days SI instead of 5 days as awarded to him by the Ld. MM.
7 With these observations, the revision is partly allowed and the petitioner is taken into custody to serve the sentence. 8 TCR be sent back alongwith copy of the order to the Learned Trial Court for its perusal and records.
9 Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
announced in the
open court on (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
13th July, 2016 Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
Inderjeet Singh Vs. State - CR No. 67 of 2016 3/3