Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Rajesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State ( NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 925/2015
Decided On : 18.12.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal & Mr. Palav Agarwal, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with Ms. Srilina Roy, Adv. SI Yashpal, Traffic Circle Civil Lines. SI Udai Singh PS Traffic/HQ
The court established that the suspension of the permit was justified under Section 86 of the MV Act, and the petitioner had not been subjected to double jeopardy.
Headnote:
MV Act - Violation of Permit Conditions - Section 86, Section 208 - 84, 86
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was challaned for violation of licence/permit rules under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). The permit and registration papers were held back, and a show cause notice was issued under Section 86 of the MV Act. The ACP, Traffic, suspended the permit for 5 days, leading to the petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the permit was justified under Section 86 of the MV Act, and the petitioner's arguments regarding double jeopardy and application of Section 208(3) were dismissed.
Issues: Violation of permit conditions, suspension of permit, application of Section 208(3) and double jeopardy
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension of the permit was in line with Section 86 of the MV Act, and the petitioner had not been subjected to double jeopardy as argued.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as being without merits.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner is the owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing no. DL 1RP 5127 (TSR) and holder of permit bearing no. DL 1 RP 5127. For violation of licence/permit rules, the vehicle of the petitioner was challaned on 28.06.2014. The petitioner appears to have been prosecuted for such violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as ‘MV Act’) and was slapped with a fine of Rs.3,000/- by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed for release of the vehicle of the petitioner on payment of the aforesaid fine.
2. The vehicle of the petitioner, though, was released but the documents namely permit and registration papers were held back. The petitioner was handed over a show cause notice under Section 86 of the MV Act, 1988.
3. The notice under Section 86 of the MV Act reads as follows:
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 86 OF M.V. ACT, 1988 Whereas it has been reported that vehicle No.DL1RP5127 (TSR) plying under route No. Under State Permit/State Carriage Permit No.____________ valid upto ___________ committed traffic violation of permit violation was prosecuted vide challan No-25680057 on 28-Jun-14 by TI INSPR BHAGWAN SINGH in the area of CIVIL LINES circle Delhi. MM Delhi has imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- on the driver.
Whereas the traffic violation committed by the said vehicles amounts to violation of the permit condition.
Now therefore, I, DURGA PRASAD JOSHI, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Traffic-North District in exercise of power delegated Under Section 68(5) read with 86(4) M.V. Act, 1988 by STA vide resolution No.1/98 dated 25.05.1998 hereby require you Shri/Smt. RAJESH KUMAR, S/o Sh. SHIV RAJ SINGH R/o 9/4208, GALI NO.11, AJIT NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI. Permit holder to show cause as to why said permit should not be suspended for period of 30 days for the said violation within seven days of the receipt of this notice. Your reply should reach the undersigned by 25-Jul-2014 at 11:00 AM. You may also appear before the undersigned along with reply if so desired. It may please be noted that notice shall be decided ex-parte in case you fail to file the reply on the stipulated date and time.
Note:- Original document PERMIT is kept in this office upto 25-Jul-2014 for further proceeding.
(DURGA PRASAD JOSHI)
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRAFFIC,
NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI.”
4. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice stating that he had pleaded guilty and a fine was imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for violation of the conditions of the permit. However, it was stated by him that Section 208(3) of the MV Act prohibits any further proceedings with respect to the offence committed, if the offender has already pleaded guilty and has remitted the fine.
5. Section 208 of the MV Act reads as hereunder:
208. Summary disposal of cases.
1. The Court taking cognizance of any offence (other than an offence which the Central Government may by rules specify in this behalf) under this Act,--
i. may, if the offence is an offence punishable with imprisonment under this Act; and
ii. shall, in any other case, state upon the summons to be served on the accused person that he--
a. may appear by pleader or in person; or
b. may, by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge, plead guilty to the charge and remit to the Court, by money order, such sum (not exceeding the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence) as the Court may specify, and the plea of guilt indicated in the money order coupon itself:
Provided that the Court shall, in the case of any of the offences referred to in sub-section (2), state upon the summons that the accused person, if he pleads guilty, shall so plead in the manner specified in clause (b) and shall forward his driving licence to the Court with his letter containing such plea.
2. Where the offence dealt with in accordance with sub-section (1) is an offence specified by the Central Government by rules for th
