Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Jitender vs . The State Ca 129/19 on 30 September, 2019

Jitender Vs. The State                             CA 129/19



         IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY GULATI
    ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ­05: WEST : DELHI.
                                         CA No. 129/19
   Sh. Jitender
   S/o Sh. Radha Krishna
   R/o B­59, Aggarwal Colony,
   Rajdhani Park,
   Nangloi, Nilothi,
   West Delhi.                            ....... Appellant
                              Versus


   State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)


Date of Institution                 :     21.06.2019.
Date of Reserving Judgment          :     28.09.2019
Date of Judgment                    :     30.09.2019


JUDGMENT in Appeal under Section 375 (b) Cr.P.C. against the
  Order dt. 22.05.2019 passed by Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, ld. MM,
                   North West, Rohini Court, Delhi




Result: Modified                                     Page 1 of 5
 Jitender Vs. The State                             CA 129/19



  1. Appellant pleaded guilty before the ld. Trial Court to the

  accusation and was convicted on 22.05.2019 for the offences u/s
  181, /, /, /, , /, /190(2) Motor
  Vehicle Act for drunk driving on 15.05.2019. The alcohol content
  in the blood of the appellant, as per the Alco Meter Slip was found
  to be 202.6 mg/100 ml which was way beyond the permissible
  limit of 30 mg. The appellant was sentenced vide order dt.
  22.05.2019.


  2. Notice of the Appeal was issued to the respondent and the Trial

Court record was summoned.

3. Ld. Trial Court sentenced the appellant to R.I. for two months and also imposed a cumulative fine of Rs. 4,300/­. The fine was paid but since the Appellant wanted to challenge the quantum of Sentence and suspension of his driving licence, his sentence was suspended. Consequently, the present appeal came to be preferred with the prayer that sentence of imprisonment may be converted into a fine. There is no prayer however, qua the suspension of driving licence of the Appellant.

Jitender Vs. The State CA 129/19

4. The submission put forth by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that at the time when appellant pleaded guilty, it was not disclosed to him that sentence of imprisonment might be passed against him. It has further been pleaded that appellant was unable to get proper legal assistance and infact, the appellant pleaded guilty at the instance of ld. MM. It was finally contended that while awarding the sentence, ld. MM did not take a lenient view and ignored the fact that on the day of offence, appellant had got engaged.

5. I have considered the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Appellant as also the State.

6. Certified copy of the Trial Court record was produced. On 22.05.2019 when the appellant pleaded guilty before the ld. MM, he was accompanied by his counsel Sh. Hemant Kumar. The accusation were explained to the appellant (accused/driver before the trial court) in vernacular. Thereafter, the Appellant pleaded guilty. The plea of guilt was accepted by ld. Court after satisfying itself that the admission of guilt was voluntary.

Jitender Vs. The State CA 129/19

7. Consequently, the admission of guilt having been made before the Court in the presence of counsel for the appellant, it cannot be accepted by this Court that the appellant did not receive proper legal assistance.

8. So far as the plea of taking lenient view is concerned, Appellant has taken contradictory pleas in the grounds of appeal. On one hand it has been contended that on the day of commission of the offence, appellant had got engaged and on the other, it has been submitted that ld. MM did not appreciate that family of the Appellant consists of his parents and wife and children. On specific query by the Court, ld. Counsel clarified that on the day when appellant was challaned, he was returning from an engagement ceremony of a relative.

9. Sentence awarded after the accused pleads guilty voluntarily can be challenged either on the ground of quantum of Sentence or the legality of Sentence. This Court is in complete agreement with the observation of ld. Trial Court that a drunk driver on road is a threat to himself as also to other motorists. Infact, he is a threat even to Result: Modified Page 4 of 5 Jitender Vs. The State CA 129/19 the pedestrians also. The alcohol content found in the blood of appellant was much too high. Consequently, I find no illegality in so far as sentencing of appellant to imprisonment is concerned, alongwith fine. However, keeping in view that appellant has a family to support, the sentence of imprisonment dt. 22.05.2019 is reduced from two months R.I. to 10 days S.I.

10. With the above modification in the order dt. 22.05.2019, passed by the ld. Trial Court, the Appeal stands disposed off.

11. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the Copy of this Judgment.

12. After necessary formalities, Appeal file be consigned to Record Digitally Room. signed by AJAY AJAY GULATI GULATI Announced in open Court.

Date:

                               2019.09.30     (Ajay Gulati)
                               16:46:18
Dated: 30.09.2019              +0530        ASJ­05(West)Delhi




Result: Modified                                      Page 5 of 5