Land Transport Authority v Prasad [2016] FJMC 62; Traffic Case 136.2015 (25 May 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SAVUSAVU
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Traffic Case No. 136 of 2015

LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

v

NARENDRA PRASAD

For Prosecution : Mr Eyre. N
For Accused : In Person

Judgment : 25 May 2016

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused was issued with a Traffic Infringement Notice (TIN) on 11 March 2015, where he was charged for Failing to Comply with a Licence for a Public Service Vehicle Permit, contrary to section 62 (2) (4) and 114 of the Land Transport Act, 1998.
   
2. The particulars of the offence is that;-

“Narendra Prasad on the 9^th day of March 2015, at Savusavu in the Northern Division being the driver of a licence carrier registration No. LC 25 on Lisiaceva road to Marrimuttu did fail to comply with the permit in respect of that public service vehicle operated from Savusavu to Nakuku rather than to Natekea.”

3. The Accused waived his rights to counsel on 22 May 2015, and pleaded not guilty to the charge on 17 November 2015. The case proceeded for hearing on 24 February 2016.
   
4. On the hearing date, the Prosecution called two witnesses and the Accused is the only witness of the Defence.
   
5. Section 62 (2) (4) of the Land Transport Act, 1998, state;-

“(2) No person shall drive or use, or cause or permit to be driven or used, a public service vehicle contrary to the terms of a public service vehicle licence or public service permit relating to that public service vehicle.

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty.”

6. The elements of the offence that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubts are;-
   1. the accused;
   2. drive or use a public service vehicle;
   100. contrary to the terms of the licence or permit.
        
7. PW1-Ulaiasi Tamanitokula is a Public Transport Officer at Land Transport Authority (LTA). In his evidence he state that on 9 March 2015, he was on mobile patrol. At 4.15pm on that day he spotted vehicle LC 25 driven by the Accused at Marimuttu service station suspecting to taking passengers contrary to his licence. He went to the vehicle and ask the passengers as they are related. The passengers told him that they are going to Vaturova for a funeral. The two passengers were the deceased sons. He ask the Accused and the Accused told him that he is going to Natekea Village. Passengers boarded the vehicle from town. Copy of the permit for vehicle LC 25 was tendered as Prosecution Exhibit 1.
   
8. PW2- Yogesh Reddy is the Enforcement Officer at LTA. In his evidence, he state that he was with PW1 on 9 March 2015. He confirmed that at about 4.15pm Narendra Prasad the driver of vehicle LC 25 parked the said vehicle at Marimuttu service station with passengers inside. PW1 went and ask the passengers. PW1 advised him to prepare the TIN and the TIN was issued to the Accused on 11 March 2015.
   
9. The rights of the Accused were explained to him at the close of the prosecution case where the Accused wish to give evidence on oath.
   
10. The Accused in his evidence state that he was standing at the service station and was going to Natekea to pick dalo and pig and then went to Nakuku for the funeral. PW1 did not ask him of where he is going. His base is at Westpac and he pick his passengers from there on that day. The passengers approached him that they want to go to Nakuku. He confirmed that his permit is from Natekea to Savusavu.
    
11. The evidence of the Prosecution and the Defence confirmed that the permit for LC 25 was to operate from Natekea to Savusavu and return. This was confirmed by Prosecution Exhibit 1 a copy of the route permit (carrier Licence) for LC 25. The route is from Natekea Village/Savusavu town Natekea Village as per the permit.
    
12. The Accused in his evidence state that he picked his passengers from his base at Westpac. He stop at Marrimuttu, drive to Natekea to pick dalo and pig and then drive to Nakuku for the funeral. There was no evidence led on what the Accused or the vehicle was doing at Marrimuttu service station.
    
    13. It is a known fact that Marimuttu service station is at Savusavu town and located along the Savusavu Natekea route which is a route permitted to Vehicle LC 25. It is also a known fact that Natekea is located before Nakuku. Though there was no evidence led for these known facts. The evidence of the Accused that he drove to Natekea and then to Nakuku proves that he was driving on a route not authorised under his permit or licence for vehicle LC 25.
    14. The Accused was driving vehicle LC 25 a public service vehicle on 9 March 2015. The licence route for LC 25 is form Natekea to Savusavu and to Natekea. In this case he was charged for taking passengers from Savusavu to Nakuku which is passed Natekea. The Accused admitted taking the passengers to Nakuku. With these evidence I find that the Accused was driving vehicle LC 25 contravening the permit route for vehicle LC 25.
        
    15. In assessing the evidence, I find that the Prosecution has proved all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubts.
        
    16. In my judgment, I find the Accused guilty as charged and I convict the Accused accordingly.
        

28 days to appeal.

.......................................

C. M. Tuberi

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE