Details - Dhemaji

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF NO 2/JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE 2 ND CLASS DHEMAJI.
MV CASE NO 441/2011
U/S 177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 of MV Act
STATE
VS
SRI HEMA CHUTIA AND ONE OTHER
PRESENT: K Borah, Munsiff No 2/ JM 2 nd Class
For the prosecution : Mr. D Taye
For the defence: Mr. J Dutta
Evidence recorded on 4.1.2012, 1.2.2012, 27.2.2012
Argument heard on 27.2.2012
Judgment delivered on 6.3.2012
JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.9.2011 at about 2 pm the
vehicle bearing no AS-22/3366 was checked at Jonai Road Tiniali while proceeding to Jonai
from Silapathar and found the following offences committed by the driver Sri Suriya Gogoi
and owner Sri Hema Chutia
1) The driver of the vehicle was found to be driving without shoes.
2) The driver was driving without driving license.
3) There was no Registration.
4) There was no Road Permit.
5) There was no fitness certificate.
6) There was no pollution certificate.

7) There was no insurance.
8) There was over loading of passengers.
Head constable Sri Jugal Hazarika registered a Silapathar PS Non FIR
case No 134/2011 u/s 177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 of the MV Act and made a prayer
that the accused persons namely Hema Chutia who is the owner of the vehicle and Suriya
Gogoi who is the driver of the vehicle be prosecuted u/s 177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194
of the MV Act. The case was received and registered as MV case No 441/2011 and
transferred to this Court for disposal. Cognizance was taken under
Sections177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 of the MV Act and the accused persons were
summoned to face trial in this case. Accordingly the accused persons appeared in Court and
they were allowed to go on personal bail. Copies of the relevant documents were furnished to
them and the substance of the offences u/s 177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 MV Act
were explained to them under the provisions of Sec 207 of Cr.P.C to which the accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the Court proceeded with the
trial.
The prosecution examined two witnesses in this case. The 313
statements of the two accused persons under Cr PC were recorded. The defence adduced no
evidence on their part and their case was of complete denial.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the accused persons parked their vehicle in the no parking zone and thus
committed an offence under section 177 of the MV Act?
2. Whether the accused persons, on being asked by the police official, failed to produce
any driving license and thus committed an offence under section 182 of the MV Act?

3. Whether the accused persons by driving an over loaded bus and without any pollution
certificate committed an offence under section 190(2) of the MV Act?
4. Whether the accused persons, on not being able to produce the registration certificate
of the vehicle, as asked for by the police official, committed an offence under section
192 of the MV Act?
5. Whether the accused persons, on not being able to produce any road permit, as asked
for by the police official, committed an offence under section 192A of the MV Act?
6. Whether the accused persons had carried excess passengers in their vehicle and thus
committed an offence under section 194 of the MV Act?
7. Whether the accused persons were driving the vehicle without insurance and thus
committed an offence under section 196 of the MV Act?
Discussions and reasons there of:
In this case two witnesses were examined. PW2 is the police personal
who had submitted the offence report in this case. In his evidence he stated that on 6.2.2011
he was posted as Havildar in Silapathar thana and he was checking the Silapathar Jonai Road
Tiniali. PW1 Pushpa Narah was with him. He had checked AS 22-3366 bus. While checking
the driver was unable to produce documents relating to the vehicle. Surjya Gogoi was the
driver of the vehicle. When PW2 enquired the driver of the vehicle said that the vehicle had
no documents. He also did not have his driving license. PW2 came to know that the driver of
the vehicle was Hema Chutia. Further PW2 stated that on previous occasion also he had
asked the driver to produce documents but he had ignored him. On that day the bus was
overloaded with passengers. When PW2 asked the driver to show him the documents he told
him that ‘I will not show any documents, do whatever you like’. On being asked as to why he
was wearing chappals while driving, Surjya replied that as it was summer time he was feeling
hot. In his cross examination PW2 stated that the RC book shown to him in court has the

number of the said vehicle and after seeing it he has come to know that the vehicle is
registered in the name of Kamal Ch Chutia. He also said that the driving license of Surjya
Gogoi which he was seeing in Court today was valid. The road permit which has been shown
to him today was valid on the day he submitted the offence report. The insurance documents
shown to him in court covered the insurance of the vehicle on the day he submitted the
offence report. He also stated that he has not produced any Xerox of the notice which he
issued in Court. He denied the suggestion made to him by the defence counsel that he bore
personal grudge against the accused persons.
PW1 in his evidence stated that on 6.9.2011 he was on duty and his
area was from Jonai Tiniali to the ASTC counter. PW2 was the Town in Charge and he saw
the documents of the vehicle. The vehicle was parked and he saw from a distance that PW2
was questioning the driver of the vehicle. He further stated that he did not know for the lack
of which documents was the case given. He was given as a witness because his duty was
detailed in that area.
The defence also examined two witnesses. DW1 who is the driver of
the vehicle stated in his evidence that on 6.9.2011 police asked him to show his driving
license which he accordingly showed and he was not asked to show any other documents. He
also stated that he was wearing shoes when police came near his vehicle, which he had just
parked. There were no passengers in the bus. All the documents were valid when police
checked his vehicle. The owner of the vehicle which he drives is Kamal Chutia who was not
present in Court that day. In his cross examination this DW has stated that he told the name
of the owner of the bus as Hema Chutia.
DW2 Hema Chutia has stated in his evidence that the owner of the
vehicle AS-22/3366 was his son Kamal Chutia and he had all the valid documents of the
vehicle today which he has submitted in photocopies after comparing it with the original. He

also stated that as far as he knew there was no pollution machine in Dhemaji Lakhimpur area
for the last four years.
On appreciating the evidence on record and after perusing all the
documents submitted in this case we now go on to determine whether the accused persons are
guilty of the offences under MV Act in this case. The case was filed on 6.9.2011 as per the
offence report submitted by the informant and from his own statement in cross examination it
is clear that on the day the offence was reported all the documents were valid and in proper
order. Also from the evidence of PW1 we come to know that the vehicle was parked and
DW1 has also stated in his evidence that he had just parked the vehicle and there were no
passengers in the bus. DW1 further stated that the police asked him to show his driving
license which he accordingly produced and did not ask him to show any other documents. On
perusal of the documents submitted in court by defense it is seen that all the documents are in
correct order and they do not reveal any lacunae. The fact whether the accused persons did
not intentionally produce the documents on being asked has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. More over accused Hema Chutia is also not the real owner of the vehicle as
the documents reveal and as admitted by PW2 in his cross examination. DW1 in his cross
examination stated that he informed the police official that the name of the owner of the
vehicle as Hema Chutia. However if the police personal had taken the correct procedure and
sent the required notice to the accused persons than this fact would have come into light.
However the PW2 came to know of the fact only on the day he was present in court and
seems to speak volume of the way in which he conducted this case. Thus his statement cannot
be totally relied upon. We can therefore concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the above discussions it can be said that the offences under
sections 177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 of the MV Act have not been established

against the accused persons namely Sri Hema Chutia and Sri Suriya Gogoi by the prosecution
and hence they are acquitted of the offences under sections
177/182/192/192(A)/190(2)/196/194 MV Act and set at liberty.
Given under my hand and seal on this 16 th day of February 2012.