The revision case is filed at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the order passed on 22nd June 2018 by the metropolitan sessions judge.
Hyderabad confirming the judgement passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 1st November 2017, directing the petitioner to simple imprisonment for ten days with a fine of Rs 3,000 and he was further sentenced to pay Rs 100 under Sec 145-A, 130 and 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, hereinafter referred to as Act. In default of payment, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 2 days for each offence.
The grievance of the prosecution is that on 15th June 2017 around 11:04 pm, Inspector of Police with his force was conducting vehicle checking at VST X road. The petitioner came on a two-wheeler and was stopped to give Alcohol test with a breath analyzer, in the result BAC level was shown as 214 mg/100 ml which is above the permitted BAC level of 30 mg / 100 ml as per the Sec 185 of the Act. Signature of the petitioner was recorded on the challan. The petitioner failed to show any document which he was asked for therefore liable to, for the punishment under Sec 130 and 177 of the Act.
A charge sheet was filed in the Court. The petitioner was examined under Sec 251 if CrPC for the offences. The petitioner has further admitted the substance of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the offences and convicted him under Sec 252 of CrPC. Further, it was submitted by the petitioner that he is the only earning member of the house and promised to not repeat such an act and request for a lenient view. The judgement was passed and he was awarded 10 days of simple imprisonment and fine of Rs 3000. Aggrieved by the judgement, an appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Metropolitan sessions judge, Hyderabad. Further, the petitioner filed a revision case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgement given by the Court's are against the law, both the Courts made a mistake in convicting the petitioner under sec 185(a), 130 and 177 of the Act. Further, he submitted that the Trial Court did not even give him an opportunity and passed the judgement. Further, the petitioner did not understand and admitted the guilt to the learned magistrate and the petitioner has not committed any offence and the sentence passed against him is illegal.
The learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot be shown any sympathy, since the petitioner has committed the same offence for the second time. First time when he committed such an offence, he was convicted. Despite the same, he repeated the offence. From this, it is concluded that the petitioner has a habit of consuming alcohol and driving.
After hearing both the parties and looking into the judgement passed by both the Courts. The Court is of the view that both the Courts have taken into consideration the past conduct and has convicted the petitioner to simple imprisonment for 10 days and with a fine for Rs 3000 and in case of default in payment, the petitioner shall be awarded 2 days for each of the offence.
When an officer is committed for the first time, the Court may award a lesser punishment of imprisonment for less than 6 months or a fine of Rs 2000 or both. But if the offence is committed again the term of imprisonment may extend up to 2 years or fine of Rs 3000 or both.
In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce any certificate for an examination before the police and therefore committed an offence under the Act. The object for including the provision is for punishing a person driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and for not carrying the required certification shall be subject to punishment.
After looking into the facts of the present case, the Court is of the not inclined to take a lenient view. The petitioner is a well-educated man who works as the store manager of Bajaj electronic and was well aware of the consequence of the committed offence. If the petitioner had committed the offence for the first time, the Court could have shown some leniency. However, despite being convicted for the first offence the petitioner repeated the same offence once again. From this, it is clear that there was no deterrent effect on the petitioner from the punishment awarded for the first time. The Court is of the view that the imprisonment for 10 days can cause the man to losses his job since he is a private employee. He is the only member who is earning in the family, the family will face some difficulties which will have a great impact on their life. The Court has to balance the loss of the petitioner and his family along with maintaining public interest at large. Since the petitioner out himself as well as the public in danger by driving under the influence of alcohol, it cannot be taken lightly.
Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed confirming the judgement passed by the Metropolitan sessions judge, Hyderabad on 22nd June 2018. The amount of Rs 3000 to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of Telangana Police Welfare find within a period of 2 weeks.