Mumbai: 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. 

The same was lodged by the women police Naik Sejal Malvankar in this connection. She was in the traffic branch of the Railway Police and was on duty at the Mumbai Central Railway Station terminal on May 4, 2015. The car entered the 'no entry' road. Malvankar flagged down the taxi driver and asked for his driving license. The driver refused to give any documents. When Malvankar put pressure, he said - 'Jo ukhadna hai, ukhad lo' and ran away throwing the license. Thereafter, Malvankar reached the police station and lodged the report. On the basis of license, the culprit was searched 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 told about the incident. 

However, Mumbai sessions judge UM Padwad, after perusing the evidence, said, "The offender entered the no entry zone, Malvankar demanded the license and documents of the vehicle." The criminal refused to give. He later threw away the license and fled in his car. There 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 his duties as a public servant or prevented him from continuing with his duty. Suffice it to say. The judge further observed that Malvankar continued to perform her duty and the accused did not obstruct her at all. This includes assault or criminal force as defined in section 353 of the Indian Penal Code or with intent to deter that servant from the discharge of his duty. The whole act of the accused shows his disobedience or disrespect towards Malvankar,

The judge said that since the taxi driver was expected to comply with Malvankar's demand to produce the license and documents of the vehicle, his refusal to do so was punishable under section 353 (assault or criminal conspiracy to prevent public servant from being dismissed). force) cannot be an offence .  The judge also noted that though Malvankar alleged that the offender had entered the No Entry, apparently no action was taken against him in this regard . Why no such action was taken is also not clear.

Sonia Gandhi to address public meeting in Hubli today

IPL 202: Mumbai Indians batters face CSK bowlers, what next

Manipur Violence Updates: Army, Assam Rifles to get things back to normalcy