Delhi District Court
State vs . on 21 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
CHALLAN NO: 2558-02678/79-14
CIRCLE: MPC
VEHICLE NUMBER: DL 1LE 9714
U/S: 66.1/192A of Motor Vehicles
IN THE MATTER OF:-
STATE
VS.
RAM BIHARI
S/O SH. RAM KISHAN
R/O VILLAGE NADIGAUN DISTT., JALON, U.P.
Date of institution : 30.07.2014
Date of reserving Judgment/Order : 19.02.2015
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order : 21.02.2015
JUDGMENT
Brief statement of reasons for the decision of the case :
1. Brief facts are that accused was driving the vehicle no. DL 1LE 9714 (Commercial vehicle) while coming from the side of Dhaula Kuan and going towards Brar Square. He drove the vehicle along with central verge on the extreme right lane and overtaking all other vehicles. Upon this challan was prepared under section u/s 66.1/192A of Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred as MV Act) for violating the Hon'ble Supreme direction. Vehicle was impounded vide seizure memo dated 30.07.2014.STATE VS. RAM BIHARI Page 1 of 5
VEHICLE NO. DL 1LE 9714 CHALLAN NO: 2558-02678/79-14
2. That the accused decided to contest the matter and accordingly bail was granted to the accused as offence being bailable. Vehicle was released on superdari. Thereafter, particulars of offence were read over and explained to him vide separate notice framed under section u/s 66.1/192A MV Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the prosecution's case, two witnesses were examined. PW-1 being Challaning Officer namely ASI Ramesh Chand, No. T-2178 and PW-2 Ct. Amarjeet No. T-6042.
4. During Prosecution evidence, it was deposed by PW1 that accused was driving the vehicle DL 1LE 9714, along the central verge on the extreme right lane overtaking all other vehicles while coming from Dhaula Kuan and going towards Brar Square. The vehicle was stopped by PW-1 with the help of PW-2 Ct. Amarjeet. Accordingly, he prepared the challan under section 66.1/192 A MV Act for violating the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is exhibited as PW1/A which bears his signature at point A. The offending vehicle was also impounded.
5. PW2 deposed that at about 12.00 midnight, a vehicle bearing no. DL 1LE 9714 was being driven by the accused alongwith the central verge on the extreme right lane overtaking all other vehicles and was stopped by us. Thereafter, PW-1 prepared the challan for violating the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is already Ex. PW1/A which bears his signature at point B and the vehicle was impounded. He also deposed that challan of owner is exhibited as PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A. Both PWs correctly identified the accused Ram Bihari during their examination. Further, identity of the offending vehicle was not disputed by the accused.
STATE VS. RAM BIHARI Page 2 of 5VEHICLE NO. DL 1LE 9714 CHALLAN NO: 2558-02678/79-14
6. During cross examination PW1 deposed that vehicle was stopped by showing red light bar. PW1 saw the accused was overtaking the other vehicle. He deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle along the central verge. They were standing near the Central Verge lane on the road. The accused was driving the vehicle on the right lane and we saw it from 15 steps away. He admitted that there was a single barricade which was placed on the left side. He denied the suggestion that the vehicle touched the central verge after passing barricade.
7. In cross examination PW2 deposed that he was present at the spot. He deposed that they put barricade at the spot where offending vehicle was stopped. He was standing near the divider i.e. right side of divider.
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC.
8. In his statement, he admitted that he was driving the vehicle. He admitted the fact that the vehicle was impounded. He stated that he did not overtake any other vehicle and he was not on the extreme right lane. He admitted that challan was prepared as Ex. PW1/A. He stated that he want to led defence evidence.
But later on he did not lead any defence evidence.
Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for arguments.
9. During the course of arguments Ld. APP for the state argued that it is clear from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 that accused driver was driving the vehicle alongwith the central verge on the extreme right lane overtaking all others vehicle. He argued that there is no contradiction in the testimonies of PWs. Moreover, the accused had admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of challan. He further argued that accused driver had admitted the challan which bears STATE VS. RAM BIHARI Page 3 of 5 VEHICLE NO. DL 1LE 9714 CHALLAN NO: 2558-02678/79-14 the signature of accused driver. He argued that accused had admitted that permit and vehicle was impounded in this challan. Moreover, accused has failed to produce any defence evidence. He argued that accused had not denied his signature on challan as well as on seizure memo. Ld. APP relied upon the judgment titled as M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India ARI 1998 SC190 in which various directions were passed inter alia no transport vehicle shall be permitted to overtake any other four wheel motorized vehicle and violation of these directions would tantamounts to violation of permit condition. He argued that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to the fact that accused had overtaken the other four wheel motorized vehicle. Therefore, accused be convicted as per law.
10. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the length of offending vehicle is about 15 feet and, therefore, driver has to change the lane so that he can pass through the barricades in between. He argued that offending vehicle did not overtake any vehicle in running condition nor the number of overtaken vehicle is mentioned on challan. Therefore, accused be acquitted in this case.
11. Arguments heard. Record perused. Accused took two defences on the following points :-
1. He did not overtake any vehicle in running condition.
2. Number of overtaken vehicle not mentioned.
In Criminal Jurisprudence minor discrepancy and contradiction can not render the entire prosecution evidence futile and irrelevant unless such contradiction adversely affect the core of prosecution case.
12. As regards the first and second defence that accused did not overtake any vehicle in running condition and number of overtaken vehicle not mentioned is concern. Perusal of file and perusal of testimonies of PWs, it is clear that there are STATE VS. RAM BIHARI Page 4 of 5 VEHICLE NO. DL 1LE 9714 CHALLAN NO: 2558-02678/79-14 no contradictions in their testimonies. Even the defence has failed to bring out any contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. But none of the PWs has mentioned in their deposition as to whether the offending vehicle overtook any other transport vehicle in running condition. Nor any number of overtaken vehicle is mentioned on challan by the challaning officer. Therefore, this defence is maintainable.
13. In view of the above observations the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
In view of what have been discussed above the accused stands acquitted for the offence of overtaking punishable u/s 66.1/192A MV Act for violation of Hon'ble Supreme Court direction.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.02.2015) This Judgment contains 5 Pages and each paper is signed by me.
(SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT (TRAFFIC-01) DWARKA COURTS, DELHI/21.02.2015 STATE VS. RAM BIHARI Page 5 of 5 VEHICLE NO. DL 1LE 9714 CHALLAN NO: 2558-02678/79-14