Taxi Driver Acquitted By Mumbai Court After Shouting “Jo Ukhadne Ka Hai, Wo Ukhad Lo”

The Mumbai Sessions Court recently acquitted a cab driver who was stopped by a traffic police officer in 2015 for entering a ‘No Entry’ lane and had shouted “jo ukhadne ka hai, wo ukhadlo” (do what you can) before speeding away.

The cab driver was accused with intentionally causing hurt and using criminal force to prevent a traffic officer from performing his duties.

Sejal Malvankar, a Woman Police Naik on duty at Mumbai Central Railway Station on May 4, 2015, filed the case. A private car entered a ‘No Entry’ road as a traffic officer was directing traffic at 05:30 p.m. Malvankar flagged the driver and wanted to see his driver’s license. The driver, on the other hand, refused to show any documents, but when Malvankar pressured him, he threw the license at her and sped away, shouting “jo ukhadne ka hai, wo ukhadlo.”

Malvankar then went to the police station and reported the incident. The accused was apprehended after being identified by his driver’s license. Because his actions hampered the job of a public official, the charge sheet was filed after the inquiry was completed. An IRCTC driver who was on the scene, as well as a Police Havaldar and a Station House Officer from the police station, vouched for the incident.

After reviewing the evidence, Mumbai Sessions Judge UM Padwad stated, “This entire evidence has absolutely nothing to show that such act of the accused caused any obstruction to Malvankar while discharging her duties as a public servant, nor can the same be said to be sufficient to deter her from continuing with her duty.”

“The entire act of the accused shows at the most his defiance or disrespect to Malvankar. However, the abovementioned act cannot be interpreted to suggest that he utilised force on Malvankar or behaved with the goal of discouraging her from carrying out her duties,” the court added.

The judge stated that, while the taxi driver was expected to comply with Malvankar’s demand to show the vehicle’s license and documents, his refusal to do so did not constitute an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from performing his duty).

The judge further noticed that, despite Malvankar’s claim that the accused was driving in a No-Entry Lane, no action seems to have been taken against him.

“It’s also unclear why no such action was taken. Malvankar, as a police officer, was not supposed to let an offender go after seeing him do an offense. Even so, the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, taken as a whole, is insufficient to show the commission of an offence under Sections 353 and 323 of the IPC (voluntarily inflicting harm). As a result, the prosecution has failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”