Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Surender Singh Sh. Jarpu Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2020
Decided On : 20-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sh. Ashwani Dhiman.
For the Respondent: Sh. Divya Sood.
Point of Law: Motor Vehicle - Accident - In view lapse of time till date from date of commission of crime, proceedings before learned Magistrate are not being ordered to be revived to prosecute petitioner for his imprisonment under Section 185 of M.V. Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 181 and 185 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 21 - Accident - Without licence in drunken condition - Central Motor Vehicle Act by passing an order disqualifying offender from holding a driving licence for a specified period or also imprisonment wherever it is provided under law and in ions contained at Committee has directed that in f driving a vehicle under influence of drinks or drugs, police should prosecute offender and seek imprisonment as prescribed under Section 185 of M.V. Act, even for first offence.
Finding the Court:
Disqualification of hold a driving licence instead forever is converted into fication of petitioner from holding a driving licence till 021 - Petitioner may be revived with endorsement in his record regarding his disqualification on account of drunken driving with complete details but on making application by petitioner to concerned Registering and Licensing Authority with undertaking therein that in future he shall not drive vehicle under influence of drinks or drugs and in case he is found repeating same offence again, his licence shall be cancelled forever disqualifying him from holding driving licence for throughout life.
Result: Petition disposed.
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. Petitioner has assailed cancellation of his Driving Licence, vide order dated 10.10.2019, by Registering and Licensing Authority, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in pursuance to order dated 06.07.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla, H.P. in summary proceedings, in Crime No. HP-13300190604212359, titled as State of H.P. vs. H.P. 10B0547.
2. The petitioner was challaned under Sections 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act), as he was found driving vehicle without licence in drunken condition. On 06.07.2019, petitioner had tendered his driving licence before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla, H.P. and, therefore, proceedings against him, under Section 181 of the M.V. Act, were dropped by learned Magistrate. However, referring direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety (in short the ‘Committee’) bearing No. 05/2014/CORS, Part-3, dated 18.08.2015, driving licence of the petitioner bearing No. HP-10-20050014758 was ordered to be sent to the concerned authority for its cancellation and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 185 of the M.V. Act, was also imposed upon the petitioner for driving in drunken condition.
3. In compliance of order passed by learned Magistrate, Registering and Licensing Authority, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. had passed impugned order dated 10.10.2019, whereby driving licence of the petitioner was cancelled w.e.f. 10.10.2019 under Section 185 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by referring direction of the Committee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record relevant directions dated 18.08.2015, issued by the Committee, referring which driving licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned counsel has pointed out that in these directions, at S. No. 4, the Committee has directed the States/UTs and their concerned Departments to take certain actions, which include suspension of the licence for a period of not less than 3 months under Section 19 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in the following situations:-
(i) Driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit which in the Committee's view would also include red light jumping.
(ii) Carrying overload in goods carriages and carrying persons in goods carriages.
(iii) Driving vehicles under the influence of drink and drugs.
(iv) Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has invited attention of the Court to the directions contained at S. Nos. 3 and 5, wherein at S. No. 3 it has been communicated by the Committee that stern action against the violators of law should be taken exercising discretion under Section 19 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act by passing an order disqualifying the offender from holding a driving licence for a specified period or also imprisonment wherever it is provided under the law, and in directions contained at S. No. 5 the Committee has directed that in case of driving a vehicle under the influence of drinks or drugs, the police should prosecute the offender and seek imprisonment as prescribed under Section 185 of the M.V. Act, even for the first offence.
6. On perusal of directions of the Committee, it is evident that it is not mandate of the directions of the Committee that for driving a vehicle under the influence of drinks or drugs, licence cannot be cancelled. In direction No. 3 it is directed that offender can be disqualified for holding a driving licence for a specified period. Specified period may also include period of rest life of the offender. In addition, offender is also to be prosecuted seeking his imprisonment even for the first offence in case of drunken driving. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistr
