SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Niaz Ahmed Alivs. Shawn Vieceli - (08 Aug 2023)

Leave to appeal must not be granted unless the court is satisfied that, the ground has a reasonable prospect of succeeding

Motor Vehicles

Appellant was convicted of reckless driving, contrary to Section 60A(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1974. He was fined $1,400, ordered to pay costs in the sum of $264.30 and his driver's licence was disqualified for a period of six months. The appellant appealed his conviction and applied for a stay of the order disqualifying his driver's licence pending the outcome of the appeal. The Appellant asserts that the verdict was unsafe and unsupported by the evidence.

Leave to appeal must not be granted on a ground of appeal unless the court is satisfied that the ground has a reasonable prospect of succeeding, meaning that the ground is required to have a rational and logical prospect of succeeding. Unless leave to appeal is granted on at least one ground, the appeal is taken to have been dismissed.

The definition of an authorised person is a police officer or a person certified by the Commissioner of Police as being competent. As the Interpretation Act provides at Section 17, the word 'or' is to be construed disjunctively. As such, a person must be proved to be either a police officer, or a person certified by the Commissioner of Police to be competent to use the equipment.

The evidence established that, SC Vieceli was an authorised person for the purposes of Section 117(4) of the Road Traffic Administration Act, 2008 (RTAA). The evidence of the officers was unequivocal and unchallenged. Contrary to the Appellant's submission, the rule in Browne v Dunn28 does not only apply when an accused person intends to give or adduce evidence. It remains the obligation of an accused person to properly put their case if they intend to challenge evidence given by the prosecution.

Present Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, the Appellant was driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed of 108kph in a 60kph zone. Pursuant to Section 60A(2) of the RTA, he was guilty of the offence of reckless driving. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Tags : EVIDENCE   CONVICTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved