Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Sushil Anuj Tyagi, ASJ while addressing a case of drink and drive, expressed that,
“There has to be a zero-tolerance for drunken driving and such cases should be dealt with stern hands for flashing proper message in the society.”
The instant appeal was filed under Section 374 of Code Criminal Procedure against the decision of M.M. Dwarka Courts whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 days and fine under Sections 185 and 194B of the M.V. Act in default of payment of fine the appellant was further sentenced to imprisonment for 7 days.
Challan for the offence under Sections 185 and 194B MV Act was filed against the accused/appellant on the allegations that he was found driving a vehicle in drunken condition and he was not using his seat belt.
MM had taken cognizance of the above-stated. Appellant pleaded guilty.
The accused assailed the impugned order of the trial court on the grounds that the principles of natural justice were not followed, and that the appellant was not medically examined properly and that the report filed by the traffic police before the trial court was forged.
Further, the appellant was the victim of improper investigation and that the order passed by the trial court was hasty. Adding to this he stated that he was not a previous convict and had clean past antecedents.
It was also submitted that the appellant was running his business of Tours & Travels and he was the sole bread earner of his family which consists of his wife, minor daughter and old aged parents.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court stated that since the appellant had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offences challaned against him, as per Section 375 CrPC, the appellant had no right to appeal as he has been convicted on his voluntary plea of guilt. Hence this Court found no illegality, infirmity or error in the impugned order, regarding the conviction.
Quantum of Sentence
Bench stated that it is true that drunkard driver is a menace on the overcrowded roads of Delhi.
The driver of motor vehicles is expected to be alert to the emergent contingencies which may arise on the road and he cannot be expected to lower his guard of reflexes. The consumption of alcohol impacts the senses of a person which results in delayed responses and reflexes which results in serious and fatal accident.
“…drunken driver is injurious to his own life as well as to the life of innocent road users.’’
Analyzing further, Court stated that this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the appellant was the first-time offender and was not a previous convict, infact he had a clean past and was the sole earner of his family, he even expressed remorse for his conduct and undertook that he won’t repeat such act in future.
While considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Court opined that the appellant deserved one chance for improving himself and hence took a lenient view by modifying the sentence of imprisonment Till the Rising of the Court.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal was disposed of. [Ishan Gaur v. State, CA No. 136 of 2021, decoded on 13-12-2021]