Mohd Khalid Ahmed vs The State Govt Of Nct Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: August 18, 2026
% Pronounced on: August 31, 2026

# CNR No.DLHC010577432023

+ CRL.REV.P. 27/2024, CRL.M.A. 398/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL)
952/2024

MOHD KHALID AHMED ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Lakshya
Govindani, Advocates with
petitioner in person
versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for the
State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh,
Adv. with SI Uttam Singh, PS:
Parliament Street.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 read with Section
1
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the petitioner seeks setting
2
aside of the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the learned ASJ, Patiala
3
House Courts, New Delhi in C.A. No.103/2022 arising out of FIR
No.50/2008 dated 23.03.2008 registered at PS: Parliament Street,
4
upholding the judgement on conviction dated 10.03.2022 and order on

1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ CrPC ’
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ impugned order ’
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ Appellate Court ’
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ judgement on conviction ’
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 1 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

5
sentence dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned MM, Patiala House
6
Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections
7
279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a cumulative period of two years , as also
to pay a total fine of Rs.5,500/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- each to
three of the victims involved, in default whereof, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of three months . Costs of the prosecution were
also directed to be paid by the petitioner by way of the impugned order.
2. Briefly put, on 23.03.2008 at about 03:00 PM, the petitioner was
8
driving a Blue Line Bus bearing registration no.DL1PB3866 , which, while
turning towards Ashoka Road from Parliament Street at Gol Chakkar near
Nirvachan Bhavan, New Delhi, collided with a Jamun Tree on the footpath
on the left hand side of the road leading to death of one of the passengers
and injuries sustained by numerous other passengers. The aforesaid FIR
was accordingly registered.
3. After filing of chargesheet on 18.09.2009, charges were framed
against the petitioner on 26.07.2012 for offences punishable under Sections
279/337/338/304A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. Then, the
prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses , statement of the petitioner
was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, and since he chose only to examine
himself as DW1, after hearing final arguments from both sides, the learned
Trial Court passed the judgement of conviction and the order on sentence

5
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ order on sentence ’
6
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ Trial Court ’
7
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’
8
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ Bus ’
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 2 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

against the petitioner, which have also since been upheld by the learned
Appellate Court by way of the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner herein primarily contended that there
was no rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner, as he was
actually driving slowly at a speed of less than 20 kmph on Gol Chakkar
towards Ashoka Road, and it was only due to a scooterist who suddenly
came from the side that, the petitioner was forced to turn the Bus, losing
balance and hitting the Jamun tree. The learned counsel submitted that the
learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the said defence led by the
petitioner, as also has erred in accepting the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses to the effect that the Bus was running at a high speed of 60 kmph ,
which was not possible for any bus, especially at a Gol Chakkar . The
learned counsel lastly submitted that though the Bus was overloaded, due
to the fault of the conductor and not of the petitioner. Therefore, since there
was a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution, the petitioner could
not have been convicted in the case at hand.
5. Per contra , learned APP submitted that there is no dispute that the
petitioner was driving the Bus which hit the Jamun Tree, as also the victims
were injured as a result thereof, which in fact led to the death of one of
them. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution, most
importantly, proved through cogent evidence that it was only due to the
negligence and rashness of the petitioner which caused the accident, and
there was nothing on record to controvert it. As such, the learned APP
submitted that the impugned order has rightly been passed dismissing the
appeal of the petitioner against the judgement on conviction and the order
on sentence.
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 3 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP as also gone through the pleadings and documents on record.
7. At the outset, while considering the present revision petition under
Section 397 CrPC, it is to be borne in mind that this Court is sitting in a
supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, it is only to be seen if there are any patent
errors/ defects/ illegalities/ irregularities/ improprieties/ or the like apparent
from the face of the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor
9
vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. clearly crystallised the same as under:-
“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power
to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of
any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and
it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the
orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one
looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that
the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions
under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is
based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not
exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case
would have to be determined on its own merits.”

10 11 12
8. For the conviction of petitioner under Sections 279 /337 /338 /
13
304A IPC, it was incumbent for the prosecution to satisfy that the

9
(2012) 9 SCC 460
10
279. Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on
any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be
likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 4 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

petitioner was driving the Bus in a rash and negligent manner at the
relevant period of time on a public way, which caused hurt/ grievous hurt/
death of the victim(s) involved.
9. In the present case, the Courts below have taken due note thereof,
which are evident from examination of 17 prosecution witnesses as also the
deposition of the petitioner himself as DW1. It is an admitted fact that the
petitioner was driving the Bus at the relevant time.
10. Further, there were consistent testimonies of PW4, PW5, PW7,
PW10, PW11 and PW12, in as much as PW11 specifically deposing that
the Bus was being driven at about 60 to 70 kmph throughout the entire
journey, wherein the petitioner rashly overtook several cars as well, and
PW5 also specifically deposed qua the incident, and that the Bus
significantly speed up while turning at Gol Chakkar and lost balance,
leading to collision with the Jamun Tree.
11. Lastly, the MLCs and X-Ray Reports of all the injured persons as
well as the deceased were exhibited and verified by PW13, the record clerk
[ Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/B , Ex.PW13/Q to Ex.PW13/Y ], as also the PMR
of the deceased was verified by PW16, Retired SI Hazari Lal [ Ex.PW16/A ].

11
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others- Whoever
causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
12
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others-
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as
to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
13
304A. Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing
any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 5 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

12. Interestingly, there was no evidence led/ brought on record by the
petitioner herein.
13. Consequently, based on the aforesaid, the Courts below rightly
convicted the petitioner under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC.
14. In such circumstances, the issue of the petitioner of trying to save
one scooterist who suddenly emerged on the side and therefore collided
with the Jamun Tree does not hold much water. In fact, this Court finds that
the same has been specifically dealt with in a detailed and well-reasoned
manner by the learned Appellate Court in the impugned order as under:-
“ 4.5 It is admitted by the appellant also that the offending
vehicle being driven by him, collided with the said Jamun
tree. As such, it is clearly established that the offending
vehicle being driven by the appellant on the relevant date,
time and place hit against the said Jamun tree which was on
the left hand side of the road, where the incident took place.

4.6 If a moving vehicle hits against some stationary, non-
animated object, it leads to the conclusion that the offending
vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
However, there may be legally justifiable circumstances why
any moving vehicle/ offending vehicle would hit against a
stationary / fixed object, like a tree. In the present case, the
appellant has raised the contention that while the offending
vehicle was driven by him, one scooterist suddenly came
from left hand side of the offending vehicle. Due to this, the
accused/ appellant tried to steer clear of the said scooter, in
this endeavour the offending vehicle hit against the said
Jamun tree .

4.7 In the order sheet dated 07.07.2023, it was observed as
follows:-
"It is the defence of the appellant that immediately
before the incident, one scooter came from left hand side
(Mahadev Road) of the offending vehicle. To prevent colliding
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 6 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

against the said scooter, the appellant took evasive action, as
a result the offending vehicle hit against the footpath.
I have perused the site plan Ex.PW-2/B, as per the site
plan, the offending vehicle hit a tree on footpath, on the left
hand side of the offending vehicle. In view of the above
submissions of the appellant, the question arises that if the
said scooter came from left hand side of the offending
vehicle, the evasive action of the appellant would have taken
the offending vehicle towards right side of the road and not
towards left hand side of the road from where the said
scooter came? "
No subsequent arguments have been addressed with
regard to the court observations dated 07.07.2023. It is quite
logical that if some vehicle or any disturbance comes from
left hand side of any vehicle, the immediate response of the
driver of the said vehicle (offending vehicle), for evading
collision, would be to steer the offending vehicle towards
right hand side, i.e. away from the other vehicle. In the
present case, if the said scooter came suddenly from left
hand side of the offending vehicle, there is no logic for the
offending vehicle to hit against the said Jamun tree on the
left hand side of the offending vehicle.

4.8 In view of the above, the defence raised by the
appellant is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is
rejected. ”
[Emphasis supplied]

15. Regarding the overloading of the Bus, being the conductor’s fault,
the same also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner herein, as since
conviction per se is not based thereon, and the same has nothing to do with
the other surrounding circumstances, especially the speeding of the Bus by
the petitioner.
16. Therefore, finding no patent errors/ defects/ illegalities/
irregularities/ improprieties/ or the like apparent on the face of the record in
CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 7 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

the reasonings and analysis rendered in the concurrent findings of the
Courts below, no interference is called for by this Court.
17. However, the petitioner being a 52-year-old man of humble means
with two minor children, and is the sole bread-winner of his family, as also
having clean antecedents, and in the 10 months of incarceration already
undergone by him, his conduct has been ‘ Satisfactory ’ throughout, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met if the
period of simple imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the
learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in C.A. No.103/2022 arising
out of FIR No.50/2008 dated 23.03.2008 registered at PS: Parliament Street
upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections
279/337/338/304A IPC is upheld, albeit , the period of simple imprisonment
imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court is reduced to the
period of incarceration already undergone by him.
19. Resultantly, the present petition, along with the pending application,
is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/Ab/rs


CRL.REV.P. 27/2024 Page 8 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46