Mumbai, May 06: The sessions court of Mumbai city has acquitted a taxi driver. He was stopped by traffic police personnel for entering a 'no entry' road in 2015, after which he ran away shouting 'Jo ukhadna hai, ukhad lo'. In this case, the taxi driver was accused of voluntarily causing hurt and using criminal force to deter traffic police personnel from discharging their duty. 

AajTak reported that Sejal Malvankar, a Woman Police Naik, who was on duty at the Mumbai Central Railway Station on May 4, 2015 had registered the case was registered. While regulating the traffic around 05:30 p.m., a private car entered a ‘No Entry’ road. Malvankar flagged the driver and demanded to see his driving licence. The driver refused to give any documents. When Malvankar put pressure, he said - 'Jo ukhadna hai, ukhad lo' and sped away throwing the license. Delhi Court Acquits Man Accused of Giving False Information of Conspiracy to Police To Kill Former PM Manmohan Singh.

Malvankar then went to the police station and lodged a report. On the basis of license, the accused was traced and arrested. Since his conduct interfered with the duties of a public servant, therefore, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. IRCTC driver, a police sergeant and station in-charge of the police station present on the spot also vouched for the incident. Thane: Man Accused of Sexual Harassment Acquitted As Complainant Goes Missing.

However, Mumbai sessions judge UM Padwad, said that their is absolutely nothing in this entire evidence to show that such an act of the accused has caused any hindrance to Malvankar in the discharge of her duties as a public servant or prevented her from continuing with her duty. The judge further observed that Malvankar continued to perform her duty and the accused did not obstruct her at all. The whole act of the accused shows his disobedience or disrespect towards Malvankar.

The judge said that though the taxi driver was expected to comply with the demand of Malvankar to show the licence and documents of the vehicle, his denial to do so cannot be an offense under Section 353.

The judge also noted that though Malvankar alleged that the offender had entered the No Entry zone, apparently no action was taken against him in this regard. The judge asked “Why no such action was taken is also not clear.” The judge concluded that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses taken as it is, is not sufficient to establish commission of an offense under Sections 353 and 323.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on May 06, 2023 02:03 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).