(1.) [One Charan Singh was driving a Bus. Traffic Police asked for his license. On failure he was produced before Spl M.M. who u/s 3/112 fined him Rs. 100.00. He filed revision before Add. S.J. pleading that his license had been taken by Police in an earlier challan and showed its receipt to the Police who ignored it and produced him before Spl. M.M. and that in view of the said receipt he could not be punished. That on another occasion there were 75 passengers in his Bus and he was intercepted and produced before Spl. M.M. who without affording him defen c opportunity hastily fined him Rs. 150.00 u/s 123 & R. 4. 38, He later learnt that punishment was also for non-possession of Regn. Certificate and that this was wrong in as much as he had Regn. Certificate and showed the same to Police. He filed revision against this also pleading that his Bus was authorised to carry 75 persons. Abdul Rashid was driving Mini Bus with 68 persons against sanctioned capacity of 35. He was produed before Sp. M.M. who fined him Rs. 950.00 and also ordered impounding of Bus. He filed revision before Additional S. J. pleading that he was not given any defence opportunity and also the order impounding his vehicle was illegal. Additional S J. noted that Spl. M.M. had passed order on pre-prepered rubber stamps by simply filling blanks and had not afforded any defence opportunity. He acquitted petitioners instead of sending the case back for retrial. He also expounded certain unwarranted propositions of law. The decision of Charan Singh got reported in newspaper. It came to the notice of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachar who suo moto issued notices to the petitioners and the State. State then filed revisions in other cases also. A Police Officer in uniform can demand from a driver to show him his licence u/s 86 (1). Rega. authority (or an authorised person) can demand showing of regn. Certificate (and in case of transport Vehicle, also fitness certificate) u/s 86(2). If the driver is unable to show these documents, then and there, he is entitled to show these to any Police Station in India within 10 days u/s 86 (3) provided that this facility would not be available to driver of a transport vehicle. Charan Singh could not be acquitted under proviso to S. 86 (3). But as his licence was with the Police and he had a receipt about it, he could not be punished. The whole thing was done in an unholy haste and Charan Singh could not raise proper defence. After detailing above, judgment proceeds].
(2.) . Cr. R. No. 61/82 is based on suo motu notice taken by Rajindar Sachar, J. of the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the conviction of the various accused persons on the ground that the trial Court had not afforded an opportunity to the accused to defend themselves properly had quashed the proceedings but had not sent the cases back for re-trial and fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the accused. Subsequently, the Delhi Administration filed separate revision petition in respect of each case. So, this judgment of mine shall be common to all these revision petitions. ...Succintly the facts leading to these revision petitions are as under : Cr. R. No. 138182
(3.) . Charan Singh-respondent is a motor-vehicle driver. On 30.9.81 he was intercepted by the traffic police attached to the court of Shri S.C. Gupta, Special M.M.; who was holding a mobile court on the roadside near Model Town at about 4.30 P.M. when he was driving private bus No. DLP 6582. He was allegedly found to be driving the said bus without a driving licence. He was thereupon produced by the traffic police before Shri S.C. Gupta, Special M.M. and on his pleading guilty to substance of accusation, he was convicted without an opportunity to defend himself. The unholdy haste in which he was con- trained to plead guilty was therefore, responsible for his not raising the proper defence. Anyway, in view of the aforesaid receipt, the conviction of the respondent cannot be sustained.