Partly allowed

Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/2449/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court confirmed the conviction but allowed the revision in part, substituting the imprisonment sentence with a fine of Rs.500/-, considering the appellant's youth and the time lapse.

What did the court decide?

The conviction under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is confirmed; imprisonment sentence is substituted with a fine of Rs.500/-.

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2449 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2011 IN CRA NO.750/2007 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CC NO. 779/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:

¶9

MOHANAN,
S/O. SREEDHARAN NADAR,
THEKKEPANAYIL VEEDU,
VAYALARIKATHU KOLLAITHOPPU,
ULLOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 THE S.I. OF POLICE CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SR PP PUSHPALATHA M K

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of September,2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petition is filed challenging the correctness and propriety of the judgment passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I,Thiruvananthapuram(Appellate Court), in Crl.A. No.750/2007, convicting the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short, ‘M.V. Act’). The revision petitioner was the first accused and the State was the respondent.

¶22

P rosecution case in brief:

¶23

On 01.02.2003, at 6.05 pm, the revision petitioner (first accused) rode the scooter bearing Registration No.KCT 1666, with one Vijayan (second accused) on the pillion, in an intoxicated state and in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, along the Pattom – Kesavadasapuram public road. He refused to stop the vehicle, as instigated by the

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

second accused, when the police tried to intercept the vehicle. The revision petitioner did not hold a valid driving licence. Hence, the revision petitioner and the second accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 185, 181 read with Section 188 of the M.V. Act.

¶27

T rial Court:

¶28

The revision petitioner and the second respondent pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read over to them. In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4, who proved Exts P1 to P5. The revision petitioner and the second accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to them in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶29

Trial Court judgment:

¶30

The Trial Court, after analysing the materials

¶31

on record, acquitted the second accused; but convicted

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and 15 days, respectively, for the two offences.

¶35

Appellate Court:

¶36

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.750/2007 before the Appellate Court

¶37

Appellate Court judgment:

¶38

The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the

¶39

materials on record, partly allowed the appeal by holding the revision petitioner not guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC, but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the M.V. Act.

¶40

It is questioning the conviction and sentence the revision petition is filed.

¶41

Heard; Sri. V.Philip Mathews, the learned

¶42

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

¶45

The point is whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court.

¶46

POINT:

¶47

The revision petitioner and the second accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the M.V.Act.

¶48

The Trial Court found only the revision petitioner guilty for the above offences and consequently, acquitted the second accused.

¶49

In the appeal filed by the revision petitioner, the Appellate Court found the revision petitioner not guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC, but only for the offence under Section 181 of the M.V.Act. The respondent – State has not challenged

¶50

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

the judgment of the Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is confined to the correctness of the conviction of the offence under Section 181 of the M.V.Act, allegedly committed by the revision petitioner.

¶53

The prosecution examined PW1 – the Medical Officer – to prove that the revision petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, PW2 – the police constable who had seen the revision petitioner riding the scooter in a rash and negligent manner, PW3 – the attestor to the mahazar, who admittedly turned hostile, PW4 – the Investigating Officer.

¶54

The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the records held that the revision petitioner is not guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC; but had ridden the scooter without a valid driving licence, which is in contravention to Sections 3 & 4 of the M.V. Act.

¶55

It is profitable to extract Sections 3, 4 & 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:

¶56

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶57

-:7:-

¶58

“3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than [a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

¶59

(2)The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

¶60

4.Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.- (1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place :

¶61

Provided that[a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years. (2) Subject to the provisions of Section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.

¶62

(3) No learner's licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section.

¶63

181. Driving vehicles in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4. - Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine[of five thousand rupees], or with both.”

¶64

Undisputedly, PWs 2 and 4 had witnessed the revision petitioner riding the scooter on 01.02.2003 in a rash and negligent manner. Despite the charge framed against the revision petitioner, that he had committed an offence under Section 181 of the

¶65

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶66

-:8:-

¶67

M.V. Act, he did not produce his driving licence to

¶68

discredit the charge against him. He also did not give any cogent answer in the 313 questioning. Accordingly, the courts below, on the basis of the oral testimonies of PWs 2 and 4 and Ext P4 vehicle mahazar and Ext P5 report, have concluded that the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 181 of the M.V Act.

¶69

On an analysis of the lower court records, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Court. Hence, I confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 181 of the M.V. Act.

¶70

Sentence:

¶71

Now coming to the question of sentence.

¶72

Section 181, prior to its amendment by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from 01.09.2019, provided that whoever contravenes Sections 3 and 4 of the M.V. Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which

¶73

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶74

-:9:-

¶75

extends to three months or with fine of Rs.500/- or with both.

¶76

Taking into account the fact that the revision petitioner was a young man at the time of the incident, I am of the view that a lenient view can be taken in the matter of the sentence, because no useful purpose would be served by incarcerating him for a period of 15 days at this distance of time. Thus, I am inclined to modify the substantive sentence by directing the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the M.V Act. In the result,

¶77

(i) The revision petition is partly allowed;

¶78

(ii) The conviction imposed on the revision petitioner by the Appellate Court is confirmed;

¶79

(iii) The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on or before 16.10.2023 and remit the fine amount;

¶80

(iv) In case of failure of the revision petitioner to

¶81

Crl.R.P.No.2449/2011

¶82

-:10:-

¶83

appear before the Trial Court as ordered above, the Trial Court is directed to execute the sentence in accordance with law;

¶84

(v) The execution of sentence of payment of fine shall stand suspended till 16.10.2023.

¶85

(vi) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Trial Court for compliance.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/20.09.23

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Rahim Vs a.R.M.Yakub and Another

P.Rahim Vs Sajitha Banu and Anor.

P.Rahim Vs A.R.M. Yakub and Anr.

C.Y.Paulose Vs C.Y.Issac

Mujeeb M.S Vs Muthoot Vehicles and Asset Finance Ltd.

P.J. Kurian Vs Kishor Cyriac