IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/8TH MAGHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 10341 OF 2024 PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

UDAYAKUMAR G., S/O.BHOOTHANADAN, AGED 60 YEARS GOKULAM HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683541 BY ADVS.

BENNY VARGHESE AMAL BABY RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MINI CIVIL STATION, VAZHAPPILY, MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 686669

3 SIBIMON UNNI, ASST.MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 683541 SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2025 Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. KL-06-F-8448. His grievance is regarding the issuance of Annexure A1 challan for offences under Sections 179(1) and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 100(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The challan is issued on the allegation that, on 22.06.2024, at 8:56 am, petitioner sped away in his vehicle by rashly overtaking the official vehicle of the 3^rd respondent, thereby obstructing him from discharging official duties and further, sun control film was found affixed on the windscreen of petitioner’s vehicle.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the challan raising false allegations is issued motivated by personal animosity, since the 3^rd respondent’s vehicle was not able to overtake petitioner’s vehicle. It is submitted that the petitioner had not willfully obstructed the movement of the 3^rd respondent’s vehicle, but there was no space for the 3^rd respondent to overtake petitioner’s vehicle. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the photograph taken on a mobile phone cannot be the basis for issuing an e-challan. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner had volunteered to take his vehicle to the Motor Vehicles Department Office for ascertaining whether fixing of sun control film had resulted in violation of the relevant provisions, but the 3^rd respondent did not grant permission.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that Annexure A1 challan is issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 167 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the offences being compoundable, petitioner ought to have remitted the fine amount, instead of filing this Crl.MC.

4. Insofar as the challan is based on the photograph of petitioner’s vehicle taken by the 3^rd respondent, it is only appropriate to grant opportunity for the petitioner to establish that, by affixing sun control film on the windscreen, he had not violated the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules.

The Crl.MC is hence disposed of by permitting the petitioner to take his vehicle to the Regional Transport Office, Muvattupuzha by 11 am on 25.02.2025, and directing the 2^nd respondent or any other authorised officer to inspect the vehicle and decide whether Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act is violated or not. If the petitioner volunteers to pay the fine thereafter, the same shall be accepted.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE ARK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10341/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN NO.

KL160304240622085655, DATED 22.6.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TRIP REGISTER ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

20.9.2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ANNEXURE A4 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.9.2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER OF ROAD TRANSPORT