Delhi District Court
332/11 State vs Ramesh Chander Page 1 Of 12 on 20 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR, MM, TRAFFIC04,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CC No. 332/11
Challan No. 453873
Vehicle no. DL1PB 4606
Circle SVC
State .............Complainant
Versus
Ramesh Chander
S/o Sh. Jivan Das
R/o H. No. 77, Nehru Market,
Badarpur, New Delhi. ..................Accused
Present : Sh. Ajay Goswami, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT
Name of the complainant, if any : SI Attar Singh The offence/s complained of : 66/192A, 66.1/192A, 3/181, 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 1 of 12 56/192, 138.3/177, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Date of commission of offence : 04.05.2011 Date of institution of the Challan : 09.05.2011 Date on which order was reserved : 13.09.2011 Date of decision : 20.09.2011 The plea of accused : Not pleaded guilty.
Final order : Convicted BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Vide this judgment, I will dispose off the case of the prosecution based on CHALLAN NO. 453873. The brief facts stated in the challan are that on 04.05.2011 at about 08.20AM accused Ramesh Chander S/o Sh. Jivan Das was plying a vehicle bearing number DL1PB 4606 at Madan Pur Khadar T Point.
2. The accused was coming from Sarita Vihar flyover side and going towards Badarpur side. The accused stopped the bus at a place ten steps ahead of Madan Pur Khadar TPoint bus stand.
The accused started picking passengers for Badarpur by calling 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 2 of 12 and soliciting passengers. He picked three passengers for Badarpur from the spot. The challanign officer checked the documents. The accused produced CC Permit of the vehicle. However, he was using his vehicle as a stage carriage. The accused failed to produce his driving license and fitness certificate of the vehicle at the spot. He was driving the vehicle without putting seat belt on.
3. Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was using his contract carriage vehicle as a stage carriage. Therefore, the accused had violated the conditions of permit provided for the vehicle, punishable U/s 66.1/192 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the M.V. Act). The accused did not produce the fitness certificate of the vehicle. He did not have driving license also. The challaning officer SI Attar Singh issued a challan against the accused driver for the offences under section 66/192A, 66.1/192A, 3/181, 56/192, 138.3/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. The accused appeared in the court and was released on bail as the offence was bailable. The notice of accusation was served on the accused u/S 251 of Cr.P.C, to which the accused pleaded 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 3 of 12 not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely PW 1, SI Attar Singh and PW2 Ct. Devender. The PW1 SI Attar Singh proved the challan on record as Ex. PW1/A. He also proved the OSS slip as Ex. PW1/B. The witnesses were cross examined and the prosecution evidence was closed by order on 20.07.2011.
6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. In response the accused stated that he is innocent. The accused prayed to lead defence evidence. However, on 30.07.2011 DE was closed without examining any defence witness at the request of Ld. defence counsel.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the material on record.. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused. The testimony of both the prosecution witnesses suffer from material defects. It is argued that it is duty of prosecution to 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 4 of 12 prove his case. However the prosecution has not been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused may be acquitted. The Ld. Counsel has put various arguments in support of his claim. I shall deal with all the contentions one by one.
8. The Ld. counsel has argued that no independent person is made a witness by the Challaning Officer. Only witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. Therefore their testimonies can not be relied upon. The benefit of doubt may be given to the accused.
9. In the present case, although no independent witness has been joined, however as per the settled preposition of law the testimony of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in "Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab" has held:
"in case, independent witness was available but not joined by the investigating officer the story is not to be ignored. Question is why police officials have 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 5 of 12 deposed against the appellants/accused when he had no enmity with the police officials. Statement of police officials without any independent corroboration inspires no confidence, this submission of the defence counsel seems to be not correct one. In case independent witness is not joined than evidence on file is to be scrutinized with great and caution mere nonjoining of dependent witness is not fatal".
In the present case, the accused did not take any defence that the traffic police officials were having prior inimical relations with him. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cannot be completely ignored.
10.Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued further that even those passengers who were sitting in the vehicle are not examined as witnesses in this case even though their testimony was very important. Perusal of the examination of both the witnesses shows that they have stated in their testimony that no public 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 6 of 12 person was made a witness. PW1 SI Attar Singh has stated that he did not request any public person to be a witness. Although, this reason is not suffice for the omission of not making any public person witness in this case, and it is also correct that at least one of passenger should have been made witness in this case. But, non joining of these passengers and even any other independent witness does not make the testimony of official witnesses wholly unreliable. However, it only put the court on guard to appreciate the facts of case and testimony of witnesses with more caution. It is also a fact that generally it is the tendency of persons not to become a witness as they do not want to spare their time to go for evidence. Therefore, most of the time it becomes very difficult to get any public witness. Therefore, the argument of Ld. Counsel does not provide any reason for not believing the witnesses examined.
11. Both the prosecution witnesses have stated in their testimonies that the accused had stopped the vehicle at near Madan Pur Khadar Tpoint Bus stand. PW1 has deposed that the accused had stopped the vehicle ten steps ahed of the bus stop and picked three passengers by calling and soliciting. Accused had 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 7 of 12 failed to show his D/L and F/C of the vehicle. PW2 has also deposed that the accused picked three passengers from the spot by calling and soliciting the passengers. the accused also failed to produce his driving license and fitness certificate of the vehicle. There is no contradiction in their statements.
12.The accused, on the other hand, in his examination u/S 313 Cr.P.C, has denied this accusation. He has stated that the vehicle runs in contract with school. On the day of incident, there was a DTC bus at the stop and his vehicle was behind DTC bus. however, he does not give any explanation as to why he picked three passengers from the spot. He has also stated that he has a valid driving license though he forgot to carry it on the day of incidence. He also shown the photocopy of the fitness to the challaning officer.
13. The accused has filed copy of his driving license (OSR) no.
6084 issued by Licensing Authority Faridabad valid upto 13.11. 2012, for driving H.T.V. However, he has not produced any proof regarding the validity of fitness of the vehicle. I am of the considered opinion that the accused has valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. However, in the absence of fitness 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 8 of 12 certificate of the vehicle, I hold that the vehicle was unfit to drive at the time of Challan.
14. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the definitions of a contract carriage and a stage carriage. The Act differentiate between the two types of the carriages. The distinction between the two has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of A.P. and Others v. B. Noorulla Khan and Another [(2004) 6 SCC 194]. It has been laid down:
"The distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit as envisaged by the legislature has to be maintained as the two types of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 9 of 12 mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If such a construction is put then there would be no distinction between stage carriage or contract carriage permits. If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up an individual or a few of them from the starting point of the journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a stage carriage with corridor restriction. Stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas a contract carriage is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to another having the same purpose.........."
332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 10 of 12
15. In case of a contract carriage, the contract need not be in writing. It can be implied also. one of the conditions of a contract carriage permit is that it can not pick and drop passengers at different places as per availability of passengers. The words provided in the Act are clear and unambiguous.
16. In Delhi most of the CC Permit vehicle are used as chartered buses to carry office going persons. These vehicles do not take their passengers from a designated DTC bus stand as DTC charges fees for the use of its stands. In the present case the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had picked three passengers from the spot. He had stopped his vehicle at a bus stand designated for stage carriage vehicles. He has not give any reason for picking those passengers.
17. In view of aforesaid discussion, the charges levelled against accused u/s 66.1/192 A, 56/192(without valid F/C of the vehicle)of M.V. Act stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is found guilty of the offences of violating permit conditions, and driving the vehicle without F/C. Hence, the 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 11 of 12 accused is convicted for the offences u/S 66.1/192A and 56/192 of M.V. Act. As he has prodused his D/L, the accused is acquitted of the allegation U/S 3 of the M.V. Act.
18. Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given to accused.
Pronounced in the open court, today on 20.09.2011 (Dinesh Kumar) MM-04, Traffic (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 20.09.2011 332/11 State Vs Ramesh Chander Page 12 of 12