BCI to Del. HC: Foreign Lawyers and Firms Entering India Will Also be Helpful for Indian Lawyers  ||  Mad. HC: In MTP Cases, SP or DCP to be Personally Responsible if Identity of Minor Gets Leaked  ||  NCLT: Insolvency Plea by BCCI against Byju’s Admitted  ||  SC: Imprisonment Till Rising of Court is a Very Lenient Punishment for Offence of Bigamy  ||  Karnataka HC: Aim of Preventive Detention is to Ensure Peace in Society  ||  Ker. HC: Second Opinion to Determine Authenticity of Disability Certificate Can be Sought by MACT  ||  Bombay High Court: 18-Year Old Who Mowed Down Woman from his Bike, Released  ||  Supreme Court: There Should be Proactive Participation of Trial Court in Trials  ||  SC Strikes Down Resolution Merging One Community in Backward Class to another Community of SC List  ||  Tel. HC: Wife of Man in Vegetative State Appointed as Legal Guardian of His Property    

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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved