Mumbai’s sessions court has acquitted a taxi driver. In 2015, he was stopped by traffic police personnel for entering a ‘no entry’ road, after which he ran away shouting ‘Jo ukhadna hai, ukhad lo’. In this case, the taxi driver was accused of voluntarily causing hurt and using criminal force to deter the traffic police personnel from discharging their duty.
A complaint was lodged in this regard by Naik Sejal Malvankar. She was working at traffic branch of the Railway Police and was on duty at the Mumbai Central Railway Station terminal on May 4, 2015. The car entered the ‘no entry’ road. Malvankar flagged down the taxi driver and asked for his driving license. The driver refused to give any documents. When Malvankar put pressure, he said – ‘Jo ukhadna hai, ukhad lo’ and ran away throwing the license.
After that Malvankar reached the police station and lodged the report. On the basis of license, the accused was searched and arrested. Since his conduct interfered with the duty of a public servant. In such a situation, after the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The IRCTC driver, a police sergeant and the station in-charge of the police station, who were present on the spot, also told about the incident.
However, Mumbai sessions judge UM Padwad, after perusing the evidence, said the accused entered the no entry zone, Malvankar demanded the license and documents of the vehicle. The accused refused to give. He later threw away the license and fled in his car. There is absolutely nothing in this entire evidence to show that such act of the accused caused any hindrance to Malvankar in the discharge of her duties as a public servant nor prevented her from continuing with her duty. Suffice it to say.
The judge further said that Malvankar continued to perform her duty and the accused did not obstruct her at all. It does not include assault or criminal force as defined in section 353 of the Indian Penal Code or with intent to deter that servant from the discharge of his duty. The whole act of the accused shows his disobedience or disrespect towards Malvankar, but that act cannot be taken to mean that he used any force on Malvankar or acted with the intention of preventing her from discharging her duties.
Why no action has been taken on the violation of rules?
The judge said that since the taxi driver was expected to comply with Malvankar’s demand to show the license and documents of the vehicle, but his refusal to do so was punishable under Section 353 Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) cannot be an offence. The judge also noted that though Malvankar alleged that the accused had entered the No Entry, apparently no action was taken against him in this regard. Why no such action was taken is also not clear.
