Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: was drunk while driving in State vs Yogesh Gupta And Anr on 29 January, 2025Matching Fragments
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of traffic challan bearing no. DL-95424240516215126 issued against the accused Yogesh Gupta on 16.05.2024 under Section 185, 3/181, 115 CMVR/190(2), 194D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on the aforesaid date at about 09:50 p.m. near Patalashwer Mandir, within jurisdiction of circle Civil Lines, the accused was found plying a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SCG-2484 without a driving license, without pollution certificate, without helmet and he was drunk driving having 172mg/100ml of alcohol. Accordingly, two separate challans were issued namely the present challan bearing no. DL-95424240516215126 against accused Yogesh who was allegedly driving the vehicle, and challan bearing no. DL-95424240516220206 against accused Puneet who is the owner of the vehicle. Upon issuance of the challans for the aforesaid offences, the vehicle of the accused was impounded on the spot.
16. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to deal with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence of the accused having committed drunk driving as the original alcometer slip has completely faded, and there is no evidence of either date of calibration or that a air blank test was conducted. Perusal of the record reveals that the alcometer slip, though substantially faded, is still readable. Further, the machine number of the alcometer used to conduct the breath analysis, result of the said breath analaysis, and the date and time of test are also reflected in challan Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B. The said date and time corresponds with the version stated by the witnesses in their oral testimony. Therefore, there is ample evidence on record to prove that the accused was subject to a breath analysis test, accordingly this argument of Ld. Counsel is not tenable.
STATE Vs. Yogesh Gupta (Civil Lines Traffic Circle)
18. The final submission by Ld. Counsel for the accused is that the offence of drunk driving is not made out against the accused as he was not subject to a blood test. Bare perusal of Section 204 MV Act reveals that a blood test is required only when the accused is arrested under Section 203 MV Act. While interpreting these provisions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjeev Nanda v. State (Crl. Appeal No. 807/2008) held as follows:
21. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused was drunk driving his vehicle with 172 mg alcohol per 100 ml blood.
22. Now this court shall deal with the evidence pertaining to the other offences alleged to have been committed by accused Yogesh. Firstly, with respect to the offence under Section 194D M.V. Act, both PW-1 and PW-2 deposed in their examination in chief that when they saw the accused driving the said vehicle near Patalashwer Mandir, he was not wearing a helmet. The witnesses have not been contradicted on this point even during their cross-examination. Besides a bald assertion by the accused in his statement under Section 351 BNSS that he was wearing his helment, no evidence has been produced to show the same. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused was driving the motorcycle in a public STATE Vs. Yogesh Gupta (Civil Lines Traffic Circle) place without wearing protective headgear/helmet as defined in the Explanation to Section 129.