Mumbai: A sessions court on Wednesday convicted a now 34-year-old Grant Road businessman Rahul Jain for using criminal force against a traffic police constable during a drunk-driving checkpoint in Worli in 2016.
Judge K M Jaisingani noted that Jain was young at the time of the incident, had no previous conviction, and about 10 years had passed since the offence While deciding the sentence. The court released Jain on probation of good conduct for one year and directed him to deposit Rs 10,000 as cost of proceedings. The judge also noted that the incident took place prior to State Amendment (Maharashtra), 2018, which increased the punishment for the offence under Section 353 of IPC. Section 353 deals with the offence of using assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duties. Public prosecutors Pankaj Chavan and Ratnavali Patil submitted that police constable Vinod Kashid was attached to the Worli traffic branch and was on night duty for a drunk-driving drive from 10 pm on Sept 26, 2016, to 2 am the next day near Hotel Blue Sea on Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Worli. Around 1.40 am on Sept 27, a white BMW was stopped for a breath alcohol analyser test. The court relied on the evidence of Kashid, police constable Sachin Shirke and independent eyewitness Hitesh Kelji to hold Jain guilty under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
Looking to the nature of the offence, sentencing the accused to imprisonment would not serve any purpose,” the court said. “Accused No 1 (Jain) is released on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year from the date of order and in the meantime to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. ..,” the judge said. The prosecution said Jain initially refused the test, claimed the car belonged to “Rajabhaiyya”, and allegedly threatened the constable by taking the name of an MLA. Moreover, it is established from their evidence that at the time of incident, the informant was discharging his duties as such a public servant,” the court said. “There is no evidence of chain of custody of collected blood samples…,” the court said.
“In such a situation, a chance is required to be given to the accused to improve him by taking a lenient view while awarding the sentence. That provision prescribes punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both,” the judge noted. Kashid took Jain’s driving licence and asked Jain to undergo the test. After being persuaded, Jain took the breathalyser test, which was positive. When Kashid asked Jain to sign the receipt, Jain allegedly snatched the receipt, abused the constable before tearing the receipt into two pieces. “As the informant acted as a public servant, he was a public servant on the relevant date of incident. The court noted that the breathalyser receipts showed a positive result but held that the receipts alone were insufficient.
“So the provision existing earlier to Amendment would be applicable.