Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 7 The Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Srinagar turned down the practice of issuing e-challans by Traffic Police against the violators and directed for issuing such challans against the violators, using electronic enforcement devices instead of personal phones.
The presiding officer of the court quashed 5 challans which were issued against a practicing lawyer for violating the traffic rules and directed Traffic Police and other authorities empowered to issue e-challans to strictly adhere to the mandatory requirements of rules and the directions of the Supreme Court while issuing e-challans.
“Ensure that e-challans are issued only through officially authenticated electronic enforcement devices and only in respect of offences enumerated under rules”, Shabir Ahmad Malik presiding officer directed.
The court further directed the authorities to ensure that each e-challan is accompanied by all mandatory information as prescribed rules. “Copy of this judgment be forwarded to SSP Traffic Police City Srinagar information and compliance”, the court added.
These directions came to be passed in a matter whereby the advocate Ahra Syed contested the challans issued against her by the Traffic Police on various occasions.
She in her statement before the court pleaded not guilty. The alleged violator besides contesting the impugned challans also filed a petition for cancellation/ quashment of impugned challans.
She averred the challans have been issued due to the repeated, mechanical and unlawful issuance of e-challans by the Traffic Police without factual foundation, without application of mind, and in complete disregard of statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards.
The advocate submitted before the court that merely clicking a photograph of a moving or stationary vehicle, without capturing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, does not constitute proof of violation under the Motor Vehicles Act and these challans are hopelessly vague and legally unsustainable, neither challan specifies what lawful direction was given, by which officer, at what time, in what manner, and how such direction was communicated to the violator/applicant.
The court directed the prosecution to produce evidence but despite sufficient opportunities the prosecution has failed to produce the same.
The court recorded that a personal mobile phone or smart phone however technologically advanced does not, by its mere ownership or possession by a police officer, acquire the character of a prescribed device under Rules. Such a device, the court said, lacks official authentication, is not registered or linked to the traffic enforcement system in the name and designation of the issuing officer, and is not subject to the oversight and accountability mechanisms envisaged by the Rule.
The court observed that allowing the issuance of challans through personal mobile phones would open the doors to serious mischief.
“Therefore, the issuance of a challan through a personal mobile phone/smartphone by a police officer as opposed to an officially issued and authenticated device is not in conformity with the mandate of Rule 167A and renders such a challan procedurally defective and legally infirm”, reads the order.
“As such, the challans issued against the alleged violator/applicant are hereby dismissed/quashed”, read the order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
