‘Suspending licence for 10 months in drunken driving harsh’
The Bombay HC has held that suspension of driving licence for ten months in a case of drunken driving was too harsh a punishment for an offender.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held
that suspension of driving licence for ten months in a case of
drunken driving was too harsh a punishment for an offender,
more particularly because of the awful public transport system
in the metropolis.
The ruling came recently on an appeal filed by Naresh
Tari, a city resident, who was found guilty of riding a
motorbike in a drunken state on July 9 by a Magistrate.
Pulling up the police and Magistrate for not explaining
the charge to the accused, Justice D G Karnik of the High
Court also referred the case back to the Magistrate for
The court held, "the sentence imposed on the applicant
is too harsh. This may be his first offence. Also punishment
of simple imprisonment of 25 days appears to be harsh. If he
is a government servant and remains in custody/jail for more
than 48 hours he may be suspended or dismissed."
The judge further noted, "the applicant is living in a
commercial city of Mumbai and might be required to commute to
his work everyday on a motorcycle. Considering the awfully
poor transport system, suspension of a licence for 10 months
would be too harsh."
"If he is a salesman and required to travel to various
places daily, he may be out of job. Several factors are to be
taken into consideration while imposing a sentence. This does
not appear to have been done," he noted.
According to section 235(2) of CrPc if an accused is
convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance
with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the
question of sentence and then pass sentence on him as per law.
"In this case, the learned Judge merely recorded the plea
of the accused but thereafter did not put to him any question
regarding the sentence," the High Court judge noted.
"There is nothing on record to show that applicant was
heard on the question of sentence. The accused was not given
an opportunity to show existence of any circumstance which
would deserve leniency or entitle him to an order of probation
u/s 360 of CrPc", justice Karnik noted.
"The offence, the production of the accused before the
court, recording of the plea, and the order of conviction and
sentence were passed on the same day and in fact within few
hours of the offence. The offence was allegedly committed at
2.45 am on 9th July 2009, he was convicted and sentenced by
forenoon on the same day.... Provisions of section 235(2) do
not appear to have been followed," the High Court observed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court remanded the matter
back to the Magistrate for fresh trial in accordance with law.
The court asked the Magistrate to explain the accused the
offence alleged against him and then record his plea.
"If he does not plead guilty the Magistrate shall proceed
with the trial. If the accused pleads guilty or on trial is
found guilty the Magistrate shall give him an opportunity of
hearing regarding the sentence in accordance with section
235(2) of CrPc", the court noted.