Mechanic not liable under Motor Vehicles Act for allowing unlicensed driver if driving not part of duty.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.9646 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 180 /177 of Motor Vehicles Act .

2. The facts of the case are that on 27.09.2023 at 0830 hours, the de-facto complainant-2nd respondent lodged a report stating that at about 3.30 a.m, she got an information from P.Kundan that her son P.Avinash returned to home with an Activa vehicle bearing No.TS 09 EQ 2968 wherein Kundan was the pillion rider and Avinash was driving the Activa vehicle. It is further stated that at about 3.20 a.m., a TATA 407 vehicle bearing No. TS 09 UC 9317 at metro pillar No.B-1219 and 1220 at the metro stairs at Sultan Bazar near to Mail post Office, driven by a postal worker came from the wrong direction at high speed and collided with their vehicle. Both Avinash and Kundan sustained injuries; Avinash suffered severe injuries, including bleeding from his nose and mouth, and became unconscious. Kundan received injuries to his left leg and face. They were taken to Osmania General Hospital, where Avinash received first aid treatment, he was later taken to CC Shroff Hospital, Kachiguda and then to Sai Krishna Hospital, Kachiguda where he was declared dead at around 6:30 am. As such, the complainant requested that necessary action be taken against the driver of the crime vehicle.

3. According to the investigation, accused No.1 drove the vehicle on the date of accident who is not having driving license and he was allotted with the duty of helper to A.2. According to Lw.8-Postal Assistant, petitioner has to drive the vehicle, whereas, he delegated his duty to A.1 knowingly that A.1 is not having any driving license. As such, driving the vehicle without license knowingly, the driver was arrayed as accused No.1 and the petitioner herein is arrayed as A.2 for negligently handing over the vehicle to A.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein is charged with the offence under Section 180 r/w.177 of the M.V.Act. Section 180 of M.V.Act, is applicable when the owner of vehicle allows someone who doesn't possess the required driving license to operate the vehicle, the owner can be punishable with fine or imprisonment. In the present case, petitioner is not the owner of vehicle. The Central Government is the owner of vehicle. Petitioner is a mechanic and his duty is only to check the vehicle. If there is any mechanical defect, he has to attend the same and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. The petitioner herein has not entrusted any vehicle to A.1, as such, none of the offences attracts to the petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner herein has entrusted the vehicle to A.1 knowingly that he is not having any driving license to drive the said vehicle and the specific duty allotted to the petitioner is that he has to drive the vehicle on that day and A.1 is entrusted with the duty of helper to the petitioner-A.2 and this issue has to be adjudicated during the course of trial with proper evidence.