Posts
No FIR needed in drunk driving cases, rules HC
By
Shibu Thomas, TNN | Jan 11, 2013
No first information report (FIR) is necessary in drunken driving cases. In a
landmark order that will impact the more than 1.50 lakh DUI (driving under
influence) cases pending in courts across Maharashtra, the Bombay high court
has ruled that drunken driving is a non-cognizable offence. Justice Abhay
Thipsay also directed the magistrate to ensure that the accused in such cases
is furnished with all the material against him.
The order means that while the offence remains non-cognizable-a less grave provision of the law- it will help the police clamp down on drunken driving without having to go through the lengthy process of lodging an FIR, filing a charge sheet and producing strong evidence for a proper trial.
Under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if a breath-analyzer detects alcohol exceeding 30 milligram per 100 ml in a driver's blood and he is incapable of driving, he can be punished with a prison term of up to six months for a first offence. If caught again within three years, he can be punished for the second offence with a prison term of up to two years.
When the police catches an offender, he will be taken to the police station and made to pay a deposit. The next day he has to appear before a judicial magistrate where he can plead guilty and pay a fine. If he chooses to contest the charges, the matter goes to trial.
Additional public prosecutor Usha Kejriwal had said this was the proper procedure as drunken driving was treated as a non-cognizable offence, since the punishment was less than three years. A cognizable offence is a criminal offence where the police have the power to file an FIR, investigate and arrest an accused without a court warrant. In a non-cognizable case, no FIR is filed; the police can arrest a person only with express permission from court.
The court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by city youth who were nabbed in the Mumbai traffic police's campaign in the past two years. They insisted an FIR should have been lodged and urged the court to quash cases against them since no proper procedure was followed. Much of the argument hinged on a document that the police furnished in court when the accused is produced. The document was titled "charge sheet", and the petitioners claimed this meant that a DUI was a cognizable offence. The court, however, agreed with Kejriwal that the document was only a complaint, with the format dating back to 1902.
The order means that while the offence remains non-cognizable-a less grave provision of the law- it will help the police clamp down on drunken driving without having to go through the lengthy process of lodging an FIR, filing a charge sheet and producing strong evidence for a proper trial.
Under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if a breath-analyzer detects alcohol exceeding 30 milligram per 100 ml in a driver's blood and he is incapable of driving, he can be punished with a prison term of up to six months for a first offence. If caught again within three years, he can be punished for the second offence with a prison term of up to two years.
When the police catches an offender, he will be taken to the police station and made to pay a deposit. The next day he has to appear before a judicial magistrate where he can plead guilty and pay a fine. If he chooses to contest the charges, the matter goes to trial.
Additional public prosecutor Usha Kejriwal had said this was the proper procedure as drunken driving was treated as a non-cognizable offence, since the punishment was less than three years. A cognizable offence is a criminal offence where the police have the power to file an FIR, investigate and arrest an accused without a court warrant. In a non-cognizable case, no FIR is filed; the police can arrest a person only with express permission from court.
The court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by city youth who were nabbed in the Mumbai traffic police's campaign in the past two years. They insisted an FIR should have been lodged and urged the court to quash cases against them since no proper procedure was followed. Much of the argument hinged on a document that the police furnished in court when the accused is produced. The document was titled "charge sheet", and the petitioners claimed this meant that a DUI was a cognizable offence. The court, however, agreed with Kejriwal that the document was only a complaint, with the format dating back to 1902.
No comments:
Post a Comment