Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.D-223 of 1985, decided on 29th January, 1986.

---S.16(1)(c)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.304-A--Driving licence, suspension of--No material before Authority showing conduct of licence holder (driver), that his driving was likely to be attended with danger to public--Mere pendency of a case involving fatal accident, without reasonable appreciation of facts of that case, held, could not be regarded as sufficient for purposes of Cl.(c) of S.16(1) Such driver having been acquitted in case under 5.304-A, P.P. C. , relied against him, no material, thereafter existed on basis of which he could be punished for careless driving--Licence restored to driver.

Khalid Latif for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.-G. (Sind) for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 1986.

.--This petition is directed against the order of Superintendent of Police Traffic, Karachi, dated 30th January, 1984, suspending the driving ,licence of the petitioner for a period of three years w.e.f. 27-10-1983, and, the order thereafter passed by D.I.-G.P. Traffic, Karachi, dated 18-6-1984 and finally the order passed by the D.I.-G. Police Traffic, Karachi, dated 29-1-1985.

The petitioner is a holder of motor driving licence. He was involved in a fatal accident and F.I.R. No.537/83 was registered under section 304-A, P.P. C. at Police Station Korangi. The petitioner had previously filed Petition No.904 of 1984 in High Court which has been disposed of on 5-12-1985 with the direction to the D.I.-G.P. to give personal hearing to the appellant and dispose of his appeal on merits. The present petition is directed particularly against the final order passed by D.I.-G.P. on 29-1-1985.

It may be stated here that the petitioner has bee- jet at liberty and the case against him under Section 304-A, P.P.C. has been decided in his favour as he has been acquitted of the same by IVth A,C.M. Karachi, on 15-7-1985. The impugned order of the D.I.-G:P. Traffic, Karachi has proceeded on the basis that since thrk petitioner was involved in a fatal accident, therefore, the same is enough for giving him the penalty of three years suspension of licence. The D.I.-G. has not considered any previous conduct of the petitioner in respect of driving nor has he come to any conclusion on the basis of any material that the petitioner was using or has used motor vehicle in commission of a cognizable offence nor has he relied upon any record in respect of any habitual criminal conduct of the petitioner nor has he relied upon any thing showing that the petitioner is a hibitual drunkard. The D.I.-G. appears to have placed his reliance solely upon clause (c) of section 16(1) of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which reads as under: --

"(c) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing make an order disqualifying that person for specified period for holding or obtaining a licence."

In our view, what was necessary to be done in the case was that there should have been some material before D.I.-G. showing that the conduct of the petitioner previous to the order was such that his driving was likely to be attended with danger to the public. Mere pendency of a case involving a driver in fatal accident without a reasonable appreciation of the facts of that case by D.I.-G. cannot be regarded as sufficient for the purposes of clause (c) of section 16(1). If the D.I.-G. had come to the conclusion on the basis of some material before him that the petitioner's conduct was such that his driving was likely to be attended with danger to the public then we would have had no difficulty to uphold the order of the D.I.-G. but the D.I.-G. has not referred to the habit which was being alleged against the petitioner nor to any other act done by the petitioner which could show that he was a rash and careless driver. We are not conversant with the facts of the case, and therefore, we cannot comment upon the same but for the purpose of the present petition it is enough to state that mere pendency of a case against a person in respect of an offence under section 304-A cannot be regarded as sufficient reason for the suspension of the licence of driver for a period of three years unless the salient features of that case made out a plausible ground of suspension of the driving licence for such a long period. In any case, since the petitioner has been acquitted even in the case which had been relied against him, therefore, there is absolutely no material now on the basis of which the petitioner could be punished for careless driving. Consequently, we allow this petition and direct that the driving licence No.6835 of the petitioner 'be restored with immediate effect.

M.A. K./H-40/K Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.