Delhi District Court
State vs . Chandra Kant on 6 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAHIMA RAI : MM TRAFFIC
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
STATE Vs. CHANDRA KANT
(S.T.A)
1. Challan No. : 1222840 (808751)
2. Vehicle No. : DL1RH-2217
3. Date of Commission of offence : 06.02.2013
4. Name of complainant : ASI Ganesh
5. Name of accused : Chandra Kant, S/o Sh. Tara
Chand, R/o H. No. 9, Swarg
Ashram Mandir, Parmanand
Chowk, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : U/s.66(1)/192A M.V. Act 1988.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial
8. The date of reserving the order : 01.06.2013
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10.Date of such Order : 06.06.2013
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The brief facts as mentioned by the prosecution in the challan can be summarized as under:
The case of the prosecution is that the accused on 06.02.2013 at about 01:55 PM, was driving a vehicle i.e a TSR bearing No. DL1RH-2217 at Indra Vihar within the jurisdiction of State Transport Authority and has refused to drop one passenger namely Sh. Manish from Indra Vihar to Safdarjung, which resulted in violation of permit condition and he thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 66(1)/192A Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT').
2. The accused appeared before the court and notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused on 06.03.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for section 66 (1)/192-A of the Act.
3. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses, PW-1, challaning officer ASI Ganesh, PW-2 HC Pradeep. Both the PW's have been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW-1, challaning officer, ASI Ganesh, submits in his examination in chief that on 18.02.2013 the accused Chandra Kant made an application to send to the court the pending challan against his vehicle and the duty officer STA department forwarded the same to him to do the needful. Accordingly, he made a challan which is Ex. PW1/A which bears his signature at point A after checking the pending complaint through the helpline. Witness correctly identified the accused. In his cross-examination, he submits that he could not remember the exact time when the accused came to him. He further deposed that there was other staff also present namely ASI Rajesh Kumar when the accused approached him in office.
5. PW2, HC Pradeep submits in his examination in chief that he received complaint for refusal/overcharging from the help line department on 06.02.2013. He deposed that they sent a formal notice to the accused/owner of the vehicle about the same. In his cross- examination, he deposed that the complaint was lodged through the mobile No. 9582147053 at 01:55 PM and no details of the complainant is mentioned in the notice issued by the concerned department. He further deposed that he did not have knowledge whether the call is genuine or not and the present challan is made only after checking the record.
6. This is all, as far as prosecution evidence is concerned in this matter.
7. The statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w section 313 Cr.P.C on 15.05.2013 in which the accused has denied all the incriminatory evidence put to him and stated to have been falsely implicated in this challan. Accused was interested in leading defense evidence.
8. In his defence, accused produced two witnesses Ms. Meenakshi & Ms. Raj Rani as his defence witnesses. DW1 Ms. Meenakshi submitted in her examination in chief that the driver Chander Kant has been engaged by her for the last three years for dropping a school going children from home to school and vice - versa. In the afternoon he picks the children around 1:30 and drops them at her residence at 02:15 PM. In her cross examination, she could not produce any documentary evidence to show that the driver was the driver of the auto that drops her children to the school.
9. DW2 Ms. Raj Rani submitted that she is wife of the accused and that her husband picks their son along with two other kids from the school in the after noon at around 01:30/01:45 PM and later drops the children home by 02:20 PM. She further submitted that he has been regularly dropping the son to school for the last 7 years. In her cross examination, she submits that she had no personal information of the present challan and she denied the suggestion that she has been convinced to depose falsely by her husband.
10.I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by learned defense counsel and by learned APP. Ld. APP for the State has argued that by refusing to drop the complainant the accused has violated the permit conditions. He further argued that the challan was made in course of duty and the PW did not know the accused from before there was no occasion for biasness or animosity towards the accused. The Ld. Counsel of the accused submitted that the complainant was also not traceable therefore, his complaint cannot be trusted and the benefit of this should be given to the accused.
11. I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case. The present challan is a help line challan which was issued after receiving a complaint through the helpline number for refusal which leads to permit violation. As far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, PW-1 & 2 are only formal witnesses who have processed the complaint after receiving the same through the helpline number. Both the witnesses PW-1 & 2 are not witness to the offence being committed by the accused. Therefore, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. The fact that complainant Manish being the only witness to the offence of refusal could not be traced and produced as a witness further weakens the prosecution case. The offence of refusal cannot be proved in the absence of his testimony. The testimonies of DW-1 & 2 also seem reliable.
12. In view of the above discussions, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. Offence U/s 66(1)/192-A of the Act for permit violation stands unproved. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence under sections 66(1)/192A of the Act.
Announced in the open court (MAHIMA RAI)
dated 06th June, 2013. MM/TRAFFIC/THC
DELHI/06.06.2013