STATE Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 3.3.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a case pertaining to an offence punishable under Sections 66(1)/192-A/7/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While passing the judgment of conviction dated 3.3.2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had held that there was no evidence to show that the respondent/accused was not wearing the uniform while driving the RTV and, therefore, charges under Sections 7/177 of the Act were not proved. However, the respondent was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 66/192-A of the Act. By the order on sentence dated 24.3.2007, the respondent/accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 66/192-A of the Act. Though the fine was deposited, the respondent/accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and the order on sentence. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment and the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence of the trial Court were set aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court, the State has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per the State, are that on 30.6.2004 at about 12:30 PM, the respondent/accused, while driving RTV No. DL-1VA-2858, stopped the said vehicle at Ajmeri Gate Bus Stand and started picking up passengers by calling them to be taken to Khajuri Khas and Gagan, in violation of the permit conditions as the accused had been given a C.C. permit only. He was also found to be not wearing his uniform at the time of the said incident. The respondent was challaned for violation of conditions of permit under Sections 66/192A of the Act and his vehicle was impounded as per Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. Notice to show cause was served on the respondent/accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined two witnesses namely, PW1, SI Attar Singh, the officer who challaned the accused and PW-2, Ct. Kuldeep, who was accompanying PW-1 during all the proceedings. After completion of the evidence, statement of the accused was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In his statement, the respondent/accused stated that he had a C.C. permit only and that on 30.6.2004 at about 12:30 PM, he had been carrying passengers in his RTV for the destination of Khajuri Khas and Gagan by charging money from them.

(3.) The argument of the Counsel for the respondent/accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was that not only was the RTV improperly impounded, the challan issued to the respondent/accused was also improper. In this regard, he sought to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.,1997 69 DLT 769 , to state that as per the guidelines laid down therein, flying squads made up of inter-departmental teams headed by an SDM were to be constituted and only such squads could enforce the guidelines/directions laid down by the Supreme Court and exercise powers under Section 207 as well as Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent/accused was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by holding that the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision were in addition to the other responsibilities enjoined on the owner and driver of the vehicle under the Act and that the powers under Section 207 of the Act were not meant to be only exercised by the SDM or ACP. In light of these observations, it was held that the respondent/accused was not driving the vehicle as per the scheme of C.C. permit. As a result, while acquitting the respondent/accused in respect of charges against him under Sections 7/177 of the Act, for not wearing the uniform, he was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 66/192-A of the Act.