IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Traffic Case No. 1276 of 2016

STATE

v

YENKATES REDDY

Appearance	:	PC Lal for the prosecution		                 		 Mr Korotini. J for the accused

    Ruling			:   26 July 2019

RULING
NO CASE TO ANSWER
                                    
1.	The Accused, Yenkates Reddy, is charge for Careless Driving, contrary to section 99(1) and 114 of the Land Transport Act.

2.	The particulars of the offence are;-
“Yenkates Reddy on the 25th day of September 2015, at Labasa, in the Northern Division, drove a motor vehicle registration number BD 630 along Naseakula Road at front of ANZ Bank without due care and attention bumped vehicle registration number GP 555.”
 
3.	The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge on 31 January 2017. The Counsel for the Accused informed the court that there is admission. The case proceeded to trial on 18 September 2018.

4.	The Prosecutor called Isoa Rokobici (Isoa) as the first witness, and Mahen Prasad (Mahen) the second and the final witness. The Counsel for the Accused make an application for no case to answer. The submission was filed on 21 September 2018. 

	Law
5.	Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for no case to answer application to be made. 

6.	Section 99(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998, state;-
		“A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due care and attention commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the prescribed penalty”

7.	The elements of the offence are;-
a)	the accused,
b)	drives a motor vehicle,
c)	on a public street,
d)	without due care and attention.

8.	The test of no case to answer in the Magistrate Court was explained in Abdul Gani Sahib v The State [2005] FJHC 95; HAA 022 of 2005; 28 April 2005, as;- 
“Firstly whether there is relevant and admissible evidence implicating the accused in respect of each element of the offence, 
Second whether the Prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, a reasonable tribunal could convict. In considering the prosecution at its highest, a reasonable tribunal could convict”. 

9.	The burden of proof is on the prosecution. 

Defence application
10.	The defence submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the Accused drove in a manner which departed from the standard of a reasonable, prudent, competent, and experienced driver. There is no evidence to identify the element of careless. The prosecution had not produce sufficient evidence for the court to convict on it.

	Analysis and determination
11.	Isoa is the police officer who attended the accident scene. He stated in his evidence that on 25 September 2015, he was on duty as traffic stand by. At 2.45pm he received a call from the command centre to attend to an accident at the front of ANZ bank. He went to the scene and found that the accident is between a cane truck BD 630 and a Labasa hospital vehicle GP 555. The vehicle GP 555 was parked at the back of the cane truck with small dents on the bonnet. He called the LTA and the LTA officer said that there is a problem with the clutch due to the oil leakage.

12.	Isoa said that the driver of GP 555, informed him that he was following the vehicle BD 630 and the vehicle BD 630 rolled back and caused dent on vehicle GP 555. The driver of vehicle BD 630 told him that the clutch of his vehicle was not working and that caused the truck to roll back. I will not consider and give weight to this evidence as they are hearsay evidence and are not admissible. 

13.	He identified the Accused as the driver of the vehicle BD 630. He tendered the rough sketch plan with the key as exhibit 1. He tendered the caution interview as exhibit 2.

14.	Mahen is a vehicle examiner who examined the vehicle BD 630 at the scene of the accident. In his examination, he finds that the clutch fluid leakage at the clutch life cylinder had caused the hard shift on engaging the gear resulting in the rolling back of the truck. The defect was not there before the accident. It happened at that moment.

15.	It is apparent from the evidence of Mahen that the vehicle BD 630 had a mechanical problem at the time of the accident and that mechanical problem had caused the vehicle to roll back and caused the accident. The accident was not due to the careless driving of the Accused. As such, I find that there was no careless by the Accused. No conviction can be made on this evidence.

16.	There is no evidence before the court that the place where the accident happened is a public street. As such no conviction can be made.

17.	In this ruling, I find that the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to call upon the Accused to put his defence. Pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Act, I dismiss the case and I acquitted the Accused.

28 days to appeal

   C. M. Tuberi
     RESIDENT MAGISTRATE