S.M. Krishnan vs The State Reserve Sub-Inspector, J-4, Kotturpuram Traffic, Madras

Swamikkannu, J.—This criminal revision case filed by the accused S.M. Krishnan, against the Judgment, dt. 13th July, 1982 in M.V. No. 1612 of 1981 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, finding him guilty under R.449 of M.V. Rules read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act and Section 85, Cl.(1) read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act, convicting him thereunder and sentencing him, to pay a fine of Rs. 50 Rupees fifty only) in default simple imprisonment for two weeks under each of the two counts (Total Rs. 100). The accused-revision Petitioner herein was charged before the lower Court for offences under R.449 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act and 86, Cl.(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for parking the Company van TMW 57 at Route No. 36-D bus stand and causing obstruction to the bus coming to the Terminus and also failing to produce the driving licence on 17th December, 1981 at 11:15 A.M. on Alandur Road.

The revision Petitioner was furnished with copies of all the records by the lower Court. He denied the offence when he was examined.

On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1, Raj Mohan, Sub-Inspector, J-4, Police Station was examined. Ex.P1 complaint to the Police, Ex.P2 copy of the Police notice, Ex.P3 letter writing by T.K. Ramaswami and Ex.P4 letter given by the accused was filed on behalf of the prosecution. The accused had examined himself as D.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the accused.

The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 17th December, 1981 P.W.1, Raj Mohan, Sub-Inspector, J-4 Police Station was on duty at Kathipara junction at 11:15 A.M., there was traffic hold up on Alandur Road near P.T.C. bus termiuns. He noticed the P.T.C. buses parked on the middle of the road upto Mount Road near Anna Salai. He rushed to the spot and found one van TMW 57 parked in 36-A bus stand. The accused, driver of the van, was found arguing with P.T.C. drivers. The P.T.C. bus driver gave a report Ex.P1 to P.W.1. There was a tense situation on account of the attitude of the accused. When P.W.1 questioned the accused, the accused went on arguing saying that he was paying tax and the road belongs to the public. In the meantime the Assistant Commissioner, Traffic, also came there and asked P.W.1 to remove the van to J-3 Police Station to avoid further trouble, since the P.T.C. bus drivers were in an agitated mood. P.W.1 asked the accused to take the van to J-3 police station and served police notice (Ex.P2) on the accused. The personnel manager of the English Electric Company in which the accused is serving, sent one Ramaswami to intervene and apologise. The said Ramaswami gave an apology letter Ex.P3. The accused gave an apology letter Ex.P4. The accused also did not produce the driving licence and hence P.W.1 laid the Charge-sheet against the accused.

When the accused was examined by the tower Court, the accused revision Petitioner herein dented the offence before the lower Court. He stated that he stopped the vehicle 100 feet away from the P.T.C. bus stop and that P.W.1 abused the company is which he is serving and examined himself as a defence witness. The accused admitted having given Ex.P4. He also admitted that his officer save Ex.P3.

On the point whether the accused is guilty of She offences under Rule 449 read with Section 112 and Section 86, Cl.(l) read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is acceptable and as such the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this view, the learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower Court, the accused has come forward with this criminal revision case, Inter alia contending that the lower Court failed to appropriate the evidence on record properly and has wrongly convicted him.

Mr. R. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner, points out that P.W.1 Raja Mohan in his evidence had only stated that he served Ex.P2 on the accused, but has not specifically stated that the accused had not produced the driving licence. The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner further contended that P.W.1 has not stated in his cross examination that there was a board available at the place where the van was parked to show that it was a bus stop.

The point for consideration this in criminal revision case is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. R.449 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1948 reads as follows:-

Every driver of a motor vehicle shall drive the vehicle in conformity with any indication given traffic sign, the erection of which is permitted under sub-S,(1) of Section 73 of the Act.

S. 75 of the M.V. Act. 1939 reads as follows:

75(1). The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed or erected in any public place for the purpose of bringing to public notice any speed limits fixed under sub-S.(2) of Section 11 or any prohibitions or restrictions imposed u/s 74, or generally for the purpose of regulating motor vehicles traffic.

Traffic signs erected under sub-S.(l) for any purpose for which provision is made in the Ninth Schedule shall be of the size, colour and type and shall have the meanings set forth in the Sixth Schedule, but the State Govt., or any authority empowered in this behalf by the State Govt. may make or authorise the addition to any sign set forth in the said schedule, of transcriptions of the words, letters or figures thereon in such script as the State Govt., may think of it, provided that the transcriptions shall be of similar size and colour to the words, letters or figures set forth in the Ninth Schedule.

Except as provided by sub-S.(1), no traffic sign shall, after the commencement of this Act, be placed or erected on or near any road: but all traffic sings erected prior to the commencement of this Act by any competent authority shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be traffic signs erected under the provisions of sub-S.(1).

A State Govt., may by notification in the Official Gazette, empower any District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police or in the Presidency towns, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to remove or cause to be removed any sign or advertisement Which is so placed in his opinion as to obscure any traffic sign from view, or any sign or advertisement which is in his opinion so similar in appearance to a traffic sign as to be misleading.

No person shall wilfully remove, alter, deface, or in any way tamper with, any traffic signs placed or erected under this section.

If any person accidentally causes such damage to a traffic sign as renders it useless for the purpose for which it is placed or erected under this section, be shall report the circumstances of the occurrence to a police officer or at a police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence.

For the purpose of bringing the signs set forth in the Ninth Schedule in conformity with any international convention relating to motor traffic to which the Central Government, is for the time being a party, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make any addition or alteration to any such sign and on the issue of any such notification, the Ninth Schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.

S. 86, Cl.1 of the M.V. Act as amended by Ac 47 of 1982 reads as follows:

86 (1). The driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce his licence for examination. Provided that the driver may, if his licence has been submitted to, or has been seized by any officer or authority under this or any other Act produce in lieu of the licence a receipt or other acknowledgement issued by such officer or authority in respect thereof and thereafter produce the licence within ten days at any police station in India which he specifies to the police officer making the demand.

S. 112 of the M.V. Act reads as follows:

Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or, if having been previously convicted of any offence under this Act he is again convicted of an offence under this Act, with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.

Bearing in mind the above rule and sections of the M.V. Act IV of 1939, let us examine the evidence available on record. P.W.I Rajamohan has stated in his evidence that while he was on duty on 17th December, 1981 at Kathipara junction at 11:15 a.m., there was traffic hold up in Alandur near P.T.C. bus terminus. He found all the P.T.C. buses parked in middle of the road upto the main road (Anna Salai). He rushed to the spot and found the van TMS 67 was parked in 36-A bus stop. The driver of that van was found arguing with P.T.C. driver. The accused was the van driver. P.T.C. driver gave a complaint to P.W.1. Ex.P1 is the complaint. There was tense situation. After the arrival of P.W.1 the accused was arguing with P.T.C. driver. He asked the accused to move the van from that place. The accused went on arguing saying that the road belongs to the Government and he was paying tax, when P.W.1 informed him that it was P.T.C. bus stop and asked him to remove the van. The Assistant Commissioner, Traffic, who was on rounds, came to the spot. He asked P. .1 to remove the accused and the van to J-3 Police Station to avoid further incident, since the P.T.C. drivers were in an agitated mood. P.W.1 accordingly directed the accused to take the van to J-3 Police Station. He served Ex.P2 notice on the accused. Further, the Personnel Manager of the company in which the accused was employed, phoned to P.W.1, apologised and sent one Ramaswami to meet P.W.1. The said Ramaswamy met P.W.1 and gave Ex.P3 letter of apology. The accused also gave Ex.P.4 letter of apology regarding the occurrence. After the situation became normal P.W.1 filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

In the cross-examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that the place where the accused had parked the vehicle is on the left hand side entrance of Alandur Road and that it was obstructing other vehicles. There is a board to show that it was a bus stop. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused in this case, since the accused gave a complaint against him to the Deputy Commissioner. He has also denied the suggestion that he got letters Exs. P3 and P4 by threatening. Ramaswami and the accused respectively. He has also denied the suggestion that he took the signature of the accused in Ex.P2, but did not give the notice to the accused.

It is relevant to note in this connection that Ex.P2 notice mentions violation by the driver driving a vehicle without a licence as item No. 4-driving without a valid driving licence. It is admitted that in Ex.P2 the accused had put his signature in token of having received the copy of the same. In fact, as already stated, the suggestion that had been put to P.W.1 during his cross-examination was that he obtained the signature of the accused in Ex.P2 without giving the copy of the notice to the accused. The contention raised on behalf of the revision Petitioner that P. W.1 has not specifically stated in his evidence that no licence was produced by the Recused in accordance with Ex.P2 notice is not sustainable especially when it is not the case of the revision Petitioner that he did not produce the driving licence and that the same was perused or taken from him by P.W.1. Thus, we see the ingredients of the offence relating to Section 86, Cl.(i) read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act, with which the accused had been charged, are amply proved in this case against the revision Petitioner.

So far as the contention raised relating to the existence of aboard at the place of incident is concerned, it is seen that in the cross-examination of P.W.1 it has been elicited that there was a board in existence at the place of occurrence to show that it was a bus stop. Thus we see that ingredients of the provision of R.449 of the M.V. Rules read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act have been amply proved.

P.W.1 deposed that the accused parked his vehicle in 36-A bus stop, that there was an altercation between the accused and the P.T.C. crew, that there was a tense situation, that P.W.1 intervened, that the Assistant Commissioner, Traffic, also came there and asked the accused to remove the van to J-2 police station and also the Officer of the English Electric Company gave letters of apology and that he had filed the charge-sheet on account of the fact that the accused parked the vehicle at 36-A bus stop causing obstruction to the bus. He has also stated that the accused did not produce the driving licence in spite of police note Ex.P2, The evidence of P.W.1, further discloses that 36-A Route driver gave a report Ex.P1 about the accused parking his vehicle at the bus stop. The contents of Exs.P1 to P3 as well as the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the accused had parked his vehicle at 36-A bus stop causing obstruction to the traffic, and also failed to produce the driving licence in spite of service of Ex.P2 notice.

P.W.1 is a responsible Police Officer. No material has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit his evidence. His evidence is further supported by the contents of Exs.P1 to P4. The accused in his statement as well as in his evidence has stated that P.W.1 abused the company in which he is employed and took Exs.P3 and P4 saying that he would not release the vehicle unless he gave such a report. It is relevant in this connection to note that the evidence of M.O.1 clearly shows that the accused did park the van at the bus stop. This is clearly spoken to by P.W.1. There is absolutely no motive for P.W.1 to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Therefore, the letters said to have been written by one Ramaswami and the accused, namely Exs.P3 and P4 are not at all necessary for proving the case of the prosecution, since it is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he did see at the place of occurrence the van bearing registration No. T.M.W. 67 parked at 36-A bus stop and that due to the same, inconvenience had been caused for the traffic. It is further in the evidence of P.W. 1 that there was a board showing that the place of occurrence is the bus stop for 36-A. It is also in evidence that the copy of Ex.P2 had been served on the accused-revision Petitioner herein and in token of service, his signature had been obtained in Ex.P2. As already stated it is not the case of the accused that in compliance of Ex.P.2 he had produced his driving licence. Under the circumstances, we find that the ingredients of offence under R.449 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 read with Section 112 of the M.V. Act, 1939 and Section 63, Cl.(1) read with Section 112 of the Act have been established by the prosecution against the accused. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the accused by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet under R.449 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949 and Section 86, Cl.(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act is confirmed. So far as the sentence imposed on the accused is concerned, namely, to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default simple imprisonment for two weeks under each of the two counts (Total Rs. 100), this Court finds that the said sentence is not in any way severe or excessive. Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed on the revision Petitioner is also confirmed. There is no merit in the criminal revision case. The Criminal Revision case is dismissed.