IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT NABOUWALU
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Traffic Case No. 307 of 2014

STATE

V

JAG LAL GUPTA

Prosecution: Sgt Rikaiwai
Accused: In Person 
Judgment: 2 July 2015 

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused, Jag Lal Gupta is issued with a Traffic Infringement Notice on 26 September 2014, for Failure to comply with a licence for a Public Service Vehicle, contrary to section 62(2),(4) and section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. 

2. On 6 November 2014, the Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded for hearing on 6 March 2015.
 
3. The Prosecution called a civilian witness Usaia Rokonai (PW1) and Constable Naidu (PW2) as his witnesses. The Accused gave evidence for the Defence and called three other civilian witnesses. 

4. Section 62(2) of the Land Transport Act provides – No person shall drive or use or cause or permit to be driven or used, any Public Service Vehicle contrary to the terms of a Public Service Vehicle licence or Public Service permit relating to that Public Service Vehicle. Section 62(4) states – a person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty.

5. The particulars of offence is that the Accused on the 26th day of September 2014, at Nabouwalu being the driver of a private vehicle registration No. EG 670 as a taxi on Nabouwalu road did fail to comply with the terms of the licence in respect of Public Service Vehicle.

6. On 26 September 2014, when the Accused was booked for this TIN, he was also issued with another TIN. The other TIN is 1611225, where the Accused was charged for carrying excess passengers. The Accused had pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentence accordingly on 18 December 2014. 

7. The TIN was issued to the Accused for contravening section 62(2) of the Land Transport Act. This section restricts the use of Public Service vehicle against the terms and conditions in which the Public Service Vehicle licence or permit was issued. In this case, the Accused was driving a private vehicle with registration No. EG 670. The Booking Officer, Constable Naidu (PW2) in his evidence confirms that he issued the TIN to the Accused when he was driving the vehicle with registration No. EG 670.

8. Section 62(2) of the Land Transport Act, requires the Accused to drive a Public Service Vehicle. In this case the Accused was driving a private vehicle which is not a Public Service Vehicle. In the particulars of offence, the Booking Officer PW2 had wrongly regarded the private vehicle EG 670 as a taxi.

9. In this case, the vehicle registration No. EG 670 that was driven by the Accused on the date of the offence is a private vehicle purported to be operating as Public Service Vehicle and doing so without a licence. The appropriate section in which the Accused should be charged on is section 62(1) of the Land Transport Act.

10. The TIN issued to the Accused in this case is wrong on the section of law cited and the particulars of offence. Accordingly, the TIN is defective.
 
11. The evidence adduce at trial support the offence under section 62(1) of the Land Transport Act. I draw my attention to section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2009 and unfortunately, it cannot be applied in this case as the offence under section 62(1) of the Land Transport Act is not a lesser offence from the offence under section 62(2) of the Land Transport Act. The prescribed penalties for both the offence are the same.

12. I find that the TIN issued against the Accused in this case is defective and accordingly, this proceeding is dismissed.

28 day to appeals

Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE