Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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