Delhi District Court
Cc No. 161/13 State vs Ved Prakash Page 1 Of 7 on 29 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH, MM02, TRAFFIC
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CC No. 161/13
Challan No. 292571
Vehicle no. DL 1VC 0483
Circle KKC
State .............Complainant
Versus
Ved Prakash
S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad,
R/o. H. No. E130 , Harkesh Nagar,
New Delhi110020. ...............Accused
Present : Accused in person with learned counsel Ms Rajni
Rastogi.
JUDGMENT
Name of the complainant, if any : ASI Sumer Singh The offences complained off : 66(1)/192A and 138.3/177 M.V. Act.
CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 1 of 7
Date of Commission of offence : 12.06.2013
Date of Institution of the Challan : 13.06.2013
Date on which Order was reserved : 21.01.2014
Date of Decision : 29.01.2014
The Plea of Accused : Not pleaded guilty
Final Order : Convicted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This judgment shall dispose off the case of the prosecution based on challan no. 292571 of Kalkaji Circle. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the challan, as per prosecution, are that on 12.06.2013 at about 9.10 a.m. accused Ved Prakash was plying a vehicle bearing number DL 1VC 0483 at Maa Anandmai Marg, Govindpuri metro station.
2. The accused was coming from Kalkaji Mandir and going towards C Lal Chowk. He was picking and dropping passengers without bus stand. He boarded 5+6 passengers and deboarded 3 passengers at Govindpuri metro station. He was found without seat belt.
3. Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 2 of 7 picking and dropping without bus stand. The Challaning Officer Sh. Sumer Singh, ASI, Kalkaji Circle, issued a challan against the accused driver for the offences under sections 66.1/192A and 138.3/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter called M.V. Act).
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 not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Two witnesses, namely PW1, ASI Sumer Singh and PW2 Ct.
Mohin Ali, have stepped into the witness box to prove the case of the prosecution. The PW1 ASI Sumer Singh proved the challan on record as Ex. PW1/A. The witnesses were cross examined and the prosecution evidence was closed by order on 03.09.2013.
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. However, he denied to lead defence CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 3 of 7 evidence.
7. Learned defence counsel submits that there are material contradictions between statement of both PWs and prosecution has not produced any independent witnesses in the court in support of their allegations even when as per prosecution there were 89 passengers in the vehicle at the time of alleged offence. She further argued that the prosecution has not made or filed any site plan in support of their allegation that the accused was picking passengers without bus stand. In view of aforesaid, she prays for acquittal of the accused as according to her, the prosecution could not prove the allegation that the accused was picking passengers without stand.
8. I have gone through the judicial file and considered the argument addressed by learned defence counsel. To prove the offence, the prosecution had to prove the following facts:
(i) That the accused was plying the vehicle on the date, place and time of offence.
(ii) That the accused picked 56 passengers and dropped 3 CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 4 of 7 passengers at the spot.
(iii) That the accused picked and dropped the passengers without bus stand.
(iv) That the accused was plying the vehicle without wearing seat belt.
9. To prove the fact that the accused was plying the vehicle on the date, place and time of offence, both PW1 and PW2 deposed and they stated that the accused was plying the vehicle bearing no. DL 1VC 0483 at about 9.10 a.m. and he was coming from Kalkaji Mandir side and going towards C. Lal Chowk. Accused driver also accepted this fact in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In view of aforesaid, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was plying the vehicle on the date, place and time of offence.
10.PW1 has deposed in his statement that the accused picked up passengers without bus stop and in his cross examination he stated that all passengers were male who boarded the vehicle and there were no other vehicles behind and front of the offending vehicle. He further stated that the Govindpuri CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 5 of 7 metro station bus stand is about 20 meters before the place of occurrence and he admitted the fact that he did not site any passengers as witness and even he did not try to ask their name and addresses. PW2 also deposed that the accused was picking the passengers without bus stop and in his cross examination he stated that Govindpuri metro station is about 100150 meters before the place of offence and 2 female and 3 male passengers boarded the vehicle at the spot. He further stated that a DTC bus was coming about 2025 meters behind the present vehicle. As there are material contradictions between the statement of both PWs about the gender of passengers boarded by the accused and about distance of place of offence from Govindpuri metro station bus stop. And also both PWs did not disclose or mention the number of passengers boarded or deboarded by the accused in their examination in chief. Therefore, the prosecution is failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was picking passengers a the spot.
11. In consequence of aforementioned conclusion the prosecution also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that exactly what CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 6 of 7 was the place of offence i.e. was it without bus stop.
12.Both PWs stated in their examination in chief that the accused was plying the vehicle without wearing seat belt. Both PWs also stood by their version in their cross examination also. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was plying the vehicle without wearing seat belt.
13.In view of aforesaid facts and consideration accused driver is acquitted for offence u/s 66.1/192A M.V. Act. And he is convicted for offence u/s 138.3/177 M.V. Act. Copy of this judgment be given to the accused. Pronounced in the open court, today on 29.01.2014.
(Virender Singh) MM02, Traffic (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 29.01.2014 CC no. 161/13 State Vs Ved Prakash Page 7 of 7