MP High Court: Estranged Husband Entitled to Loss of Consortium Compensation After Wife’s Death  ||  J&K & Ladakh HC: Claims under Roshni Act Void Ab Initio, Ownership Rights Null from Inception  ||  Madras High Court Directs Expedited Trials in 216 Pending Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs  ||  MP High Court: Allowing Minor to Drive Without Valid License Constitutes Breach of Insurance Policy  ||  Punjab & Haryana High Court: Cyber Fraud Cases Uphold Public Trust, Cannot Be Quashed by Compromise  ||  SC: Customer-Banker Relationship Based on Mutual Trust, Postmaster’s Reinstatement Quashed  ||  Supreme Court: Company Buying Software for Efficiency and Profit Is Not a ‘Consumer’ under CPA  ||  SC: Long Custody or Trial Delay Not Ground for Bail in Commercial Narcotic Cases if S.37 Unmet  ||  Calcutta HC Disqualifies Politician Mukul Roy from Assembly under Anti-Defection Law  ||  Supreme Court Bans Mining in and Around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved