ABDUL JALEEL Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.No.2233 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode. After full trial, the learned Magistrate convicted him under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act(MV Act), and on conviction, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- by judgment dated 6.10.2016. As the said judgment is not amenable to appeal, he filed a revision before the Court of Session, Kozhikode as Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2016 challenging the conviction and sentence. Finding that there is no illegality or irregularity for interference in revision, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissed the petitioner's revision on 27.3.2017. The said order, and also the judgment of conviction are now sought to be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the conviction is illegal, or that the petty case charge sheet submitted by the Police does not contain the essentials of the offence made punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) For examining what exactly is the allegation in the petty case charge sheet, I called for the original petty case charge sheet from the trial court. The charge sheet was examined by me, and the evidence given by the Police Officers including the Sub Inspector who detected the offence was also perused.

(3.) What is punishable under Section 184 of the MV Act is the act of driving dangerously, and the section has explained what is meant by driving dangerously. It means driving a vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, and the question whether the said driving was dangerous to the public, can be examined and adjudged on the basis of the relevant factors furnished by the prosecution, like the nature of the driving, the condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven, and also the amount of traffic at the place at the time of driving, or which might reasonably be expected at that place. Section 184 of the MV Act is worded in such a way that while alleging dangerous driving under the said Section, the detecting officer must specify the relevant circumstances and conditions in which the driving is alleged to be dangerous. There is nothing of that sort in the petty case charge sheet in this case. The Sub Inspector has only stated that a vehicle was seen driven carelessly and dangerously by the petitioner. He has not explained how he could assess that the said driving was reckless or dangerous. The petty case charge sheet does not contain anything regarding the nature of the road, the way of driving, the nature of the driving, the probable speed of the vehicle, or the nature and the extent of the traffic seen or expected at the spot of detection. While alleging dangerous driving under Section 184 of the MV Act, all these relevant matters and factors on the basis of which the alleged driving can be assessed and adjudged as dangerous, will have to be furnished by the detecting officer in the petty case charge sheet. Simply alleging dangerous driving will not constitute the offence made punishable under Section 184 of the MV Act. The evidence given by the Sub Inspector and the supporting Constable also does not contain the essential aspects of Section 184 of the MV Act. These witnesses have not stated how and why the petitioner's driving is alleged as dangerous.