Delhi District Court
Udaiveer vs . The State on 15 January, 2019
Udaiveer Vs. The State
Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019
IN THE COURT OF Dr. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA:
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI [PC ACT]:
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019
Udaiveer
S/o Late Sh. Narayan Singh,
R/o 76/9, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi.
....Appellant
Versus
The State
(N.C.T of Delhi)
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 04.01.2019
Date of conclusion of arguments : 15.01.2019
Date of Order : 15.01.2019
JUDGMENT :
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment / order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Page No.1/8
Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019
2. Vide the impugned judgment / order, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for 45 days with fine of Rs.4000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
3. I have perused the appeal and the impugned judgment / order. Admittedly the convict was driving a commercial vehicle i.e. TSR under the influence of alcohol and on a Breath Alcohol Analysis Test, the alcohol content in his blood was found to be as high as 398mg / 100ml.
4. The impugned judgment / sentence is being challenged firstly on the ground that the convict had been forced by the Ld. MM to plead guilty and that the Ld. MM did not explain him that he had a right of trial and, therefore, the contention is that grave Page No.2/8 Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019 prejudice has been caused to the convict. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel that though the provisions of section 375 Cr.PC under which the appeal has been filed do not allow him to challenge the order of conviction, his submission is that once the accused had been forced to plead guilty, the said plea should not be considered as valid in the eyes of law.
5. In the alternative, it has been prayed by him that atleast the sentence imposed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate upon the convict be set aside and that leniency be shown in this regard. He has further submitted that accused has already paid the entire fine amount imposed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and his further submission is that though accused was not taken to any government hospital. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that appellant is a first time offender and that he is the sole bread earning member of his family.
Page No.3/8
Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019
6. It is, thus, the prayer that the simple imprisonment imposed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate upon the convict be set aside and that he may not be made to suffer the company of hard core criminals in the jail.
7. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State had submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant as he had absolutely no right to drive under drunken condition and to place the lives of innocent road users at risk. He has submitted that drunken driving is a menace to society at large and many people have lost their precious lives on roads because of such driving. He has thus submitted that the sentenced imposed by the Ld. Magistrate i.e simple imprisonment for 45 days is justified in the facts of the present case and therefore, has submitted that the impugned judgment / order require no interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Page No.4/8 Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019 both the ld. Counsels. The present appeal has been filed under section 375 Cr.PC which makes it clear that no appeal is to be entertained on a conviction based on a plea of guilt except to the extent or legality of the sentence. The assertion of the appellant that in the present case he was forced to plead guilty by the Ld. MM is to be outrightly rejected for it is completely illogical to accept that a Judicial Officer will have any interest whatsoever in forcing a person to plead guilty. The submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant that the present is a fit case where the appellant should also be heard against the order of conviction is therefore to be rejected.
9. Coming to the legality of the impugned sentence, dealing with the issue of sentencing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court a case titled and reported as Karamjeet Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (2001) 9SCC 161 has made the following observations:
Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from Page No.5/8 Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019 repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other.
10. The aforementioned judicial dicta, therefore, makes it clear that the sole purpose of punishing an offender is not retribution alone and that the courts while sentencing an offender have to balance the interest of an individual and the concerns of the society. In the present case, it has been rightly contended by Ld. APP for State that drunken driving has become a huge menace to the society at large and that in such cases simply admonishing an accused will not serve the concerns of the society at all. Present is a case where the appellant has been convicted for driving a Page No.6/8 Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019 commercial vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The only mitigating circumstance in the present case is that the accused has no previous antecedents and this is the first time that he had been found guilty of having committed an offence.
11. Keeping in view the concerns of the society and taking into consideration that the accused has no previous antecedents and he has a family look after and that, therefore, a loss of 45 earning days would unjustly burden the family of the accused, the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby reduced to Till Rising of the Court (TRC).
12. At this stage Ld. Counsel for the appellant and the appellant in person states that they do not wish to challenge this order and that the appellant is wishing to surrender immediately.
13. In view thereof, let appellant be taken into custody to Page No.7/8 Udaiveer Vs. The State Criminal Appeal No. 06/2019 serve the sentence of TRC.
14. Copy of this order be sent to Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts for purposes of record. Copy of this order be supplied to convict. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
VIJAY by VIJAY KUMAR Announced in the Open Court. KUMAR DAHIYA Date: On the 15.01.2019 DAHIYA 2019.01.16 10:10:28 +0530 (DR. V.K. DAHIYA) SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (P.C. ACT) DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI. Page No.8/8