Delhi District Court
State vs Gadrab Singh on 20 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNEESH GARG MM-02 TRAFFIC ROOM
NO. 13 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Challan No.: 63039
Circle: IGI
U/s: 84(4)/177, 39/192 & 146/196 M.V. Act.
State V/s Gadrab Singh
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 147/12
b. Date of commission of offence : 11.11.2011
c. Date of institution of the case : 03.01.2012
d. Name & address of accused : Gadrab Singh
R/o C-83, Dasrath Puri, New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : 84(4)/177, 39/192 & 146/196
M.V.Act, 1988
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
g. Final order : Convicted U/s 146/196 & 84(4)/177
& Acquitted U/s 39/192 M.V. Act.
h. Date of hearing final
arguments and final adjourning
the matter for order : 20.01.2012
i. The date of such order : 20.01.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2011 at about 11.40 p.m. at Terminal - 2 accused Gadrab Singh was plying his vehicle bearing No. DL2CAL-6926 without insurance certificate and was found carrying goods in 13 baggages loaded in his vehicle used for commercial purpose on hire from airport to I.S.B.T and thereby used his private vehicle for commercial purpose which is a violation of condition of RC and thereby committed an offence U/s 146/196, 84(4)/177 & 39/192 of M.V. Act.
2. Vide order dated 03.01.2012, notice was framed against the accused U/s 84(4)/177, 39/192 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Challan No. 63039 Pg No. 1/5 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined two witnesses namely ZO SI Samunder Singh (PW-1) who is the challaning officer and proved copy of challan Ex. PW-1/A & TI Bageshwar (PW-2).
4. To support the case of prosecution, PW-1 ZO SI Samunder Singh has deposed that on dated 11.11.2011 he was posted at IGI Circle along with TI and Ct. Devender Kumar. At about at 11:40 p.m. one vehicle bearing No. DL2CAL-6926, came from the side of Terminal - 3 Airport. The vehicle was got stopped and on checking it was found carrying goods (13 baggages) loaded in private vehicle and was going towards ISBT. He further stated that the private vehicle was being used for commercial purpose which is a violation of RC. Also, the accused did not produce insurance of the vehicle at the spot. Thereafter, PW-1 challaned the accused in the presence of PW-2 TI Bageshwar U/s 39/192, 84(4)/177 & 146/196 of M.V. Act which is Ex. PW-1/A and the RC of the vehicle was taken in possession. Accused has cross-examined the witness.
5. PW-2 TI Bageshwar also deposed that on 11.11.2011 at about 11:40 p.m one vehicle bearing No. DL2CAL-6926, came from the side of Terminal - 3 Airport. The vehicle was got stopped and on checking it was found that accused was carrying goods ( 13 baggages) loaded in private vehicle and was going towards I.S.B.T. He further deposed that the accused did not produce the insurance certificate of the vehicle at the spot. Thereafter, ZO challaned the accused and the RC of the vehicle was taken in possession.
6. After that PE was closed Vide order dated 20.01.2012 and accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused wherein he stated that he was carrying clothes in the bags and admitted the fact that he failed to produce insurance certificate of the Challan No. 63039 Pg No. 2/5 vehicle at the spot. Accused did not intend to lead DE.
7. I have heard the final arguments from both the sides and have perused the evidence on record led by prosecution carefully.
8. Ld. APP for the State argued that PW-1 ZO SI Samunder Singh and PW-2 TI Bageshwar proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the State argued that all the prosecution witnesses has successfully proved the fact that the accused was using the private vehicle for commercial purpose and was driving the vehicle without insurance certificate. Therefore, the guilt of the accused is established beyond the reasonable doubt. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that by virtue of evidence available on judicial file, accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 84(4)/177, 39/192 & 146/196 of M.V. Act.
9. On the other hand, it is argued by the accused that he was falsely implicated in the present case and he is totally innocent.
10. Firstly, in order to succeed in the present case, the prosecution had to prove the fact that accused was carrying goods in the passenger vehicle in contravention of Rule 84(4) of DMVR and using the private vehicle for commercial purpose in contravention to the condition of RC of the vehicle. In the present case, accused admitted the fact, in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., that he was carrying 13 baggages containing clothes and toiletry articles in the vehicle in question. PW-1 and PW-2 also deposed in their testimony that accused was found carrying 13 baggages loaded in the private vehicle. Thus, the prosecution has proved the fact that accused was carrying goods in the passenger vehicle in contravention of rule 84 (4) of Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules as the testimony of witnesses remain unimpeached. However, the accused argued that he was not using the private vehicle for commercial purpose as he was carrying baggage of his family members containing clothes and toiletry articles. In their cross-
Challan No. 63039 Pg No. 3/5examination, prosecution witnesses also failed to explain that on what basis they came to the conclusion that private vehicle was used for commercial purpose. In their cross-examination, PW-1 & PW-2 admitted the fact that they did not open the bags loaded in the vehicle and they can not say what was there inside the bags. They also admitted the fact in their cross-examination that there can be clothes for personal use in the bags. Thus it is clear from the testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 that no steps were taken by the challaning officer to ascertain the fact that bags contains goods for commercial purpose. Thus, in the absence of any material which shows that accused was carrying goods for commercial purpose, it can not be said with certainty that accused violated the conditions of RC as alleged by the prosecution.
11. Moreover, no public witness has been examined in the present case. In the present case, all the prosecution witnesses are the official witnesses. Prosecution witnesses has not stated in their evidences that efforts have been made to join the two passengers travelling in the impugned vehicle. This failure on the part of prosecution raises reasonable doubt on the prosecution story.
A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
In case law reported as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:
5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for Challan No. 63039 Pg No. 4/5 the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused..
12. Secondly, in order to prove the offence of driving the vehicle without insurance, both the witnesses deposed consistently that accused failed to produce insurance of the vehicle at the spot. Moreover, accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. also admitted the fact that he failed to produce the insurance certificate of the vehicle at the spot. Thus, prosecution has proved the fact that accused was driving the vehicle without insurance on the date of incident.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to established beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused was using his private vehicle for commercial purpose. Hence, accused is acquitted U/s 39/192 of M.V. Act. However, prosecution has established beyond the reasonable doubt that accused was carring goods in the passenger vehicle in contravention of rule 84 (4) DMVR and driving the vehicle without insurance. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 146/196 & 84(4)177of M.V.Act.
Announced in the open court on dated 20.01.2012 This judgment contains 05 pages and each paper is signed by me.
(Muneesh Garg) MM-02,Traffic Room No.13 , Dwarka Courts, Delhi. 20.01.2012 Challan No. 63039 Pg No. 5/5