Driving without a valid license constitutes an offense under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, necessitating strict adherence to licensing requirements for public safety.

O R D E R

The revision petition is filed challenging the correctness and propriety of the judgment passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I,Thiruvananthapuram(Appellate Court), in Crl.A. No.750/2007, convicting the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988(in short, ‘M.V. Act’). The revision petitioner was the first accused and the State was the respondent.

P rosecution cas e in b rief:

2. On 01.02.2003, at 6.05 pm, the revision petitioner (first accused) rode the scooter bearing Registration No.KCT 1666, with one Vijayan (second accused) on the pillion, in an intoxicated state and in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, along the Pattom – Kesavadasapuram public road. He refused to stop the vehicle, as instigated by the second accused, when the police tried to intercept the vehicle. The revision petitioner did not hold a valid driving licence. Hence, the revision petitioner and the second accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 185, 181 read with Section 188 of the M.V. Act.

T rial Court:

3. The revision petitioner and the second respondent pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read over to them. In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4, who proved Exts P1 to P5. The revision petitioner and the second accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to them in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Trial Court judgment:

4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials on record, acquitted the second accused; but convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and 15 days, respectively, for the two offences.

Appellate Court:

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.750/2007 before the Appellate Court Appellate Court judgment:

6. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials on record, partly allowed the appeal by holding the revision petitioner not guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC, but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the M.V. Act.

7. It is questioning the conviction and sentence the revision petition is filed.

8. Heard; Sri. V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

9. The point is whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court.

POINT:

10. The revision petitioner and the second accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) read with Section 181 of the M.V.Act.

11. The Trial Court found only the revision petitioner guilty for the above offences and consequently, acquitted the second accused.

12. In the appeal filed by the revision petitioner, the Appellate Court found the revision petitioner not guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC, but only for the offence under Section 181 of the M.V.Act. The respondent – State has not challenged the judgment of the Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is confined to the correctness of the conviction of the offence under of the M.V.Act, allegedly committed by the revision petitioner.

13. The prosecution examined PW1 – the Medical Officer – to prove that the revision petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, PW2 – the police constable who had seen the revision petitioner riding the scooter in a rash and negligent manner, PW3 – the attestor to the mahazar, who admittedly turned hostile, PW4 – the Investigating Officer.

14. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the records held that the re