A camera challan looks unanswerable because it arrives with a photograph and a number. It is worth understanding what that number has to be proved to be before it convicts anybody, and what the Act says about the speed limit it is measured against.
What the limit is, and who set it
Section 112(1) provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place at a speed exceeding the maximum, or below the minimum, fixed for the vehicle under the Act or any other law, with a proviso that the maximum shall in no case exceed the maximum fixed for that class of vehicle by the Central Government by notification. Section 112(2) allows the State Government or an authorised authority, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of a road or bridge, to fix maximum or minimum limits by notification in the Official Gazette and by causing appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under Section 116 at suitable places. A further proviso dispenses with notification only where a restriction is to remain in force for not more than one month.
Two elements, then. A notification, and signs. A challan alleging a limit that no sign at that location conveys is a challan with a question mark on it, and photographs of the approach to the camera taken shortly afterwards are worth taking.
The penalty scale
Section 183(1) fixes the punishment for driving in contravention of the Section 112 speed limits in bands. For a light motor vehicle, a fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but may extend to two thousand rupees. For a medium goods or medium passenger vehicle, or a heavy goods or heavy passenger vehicle, a fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but may extend to four thousand rupees. For a second or subsequent offence under that sub-section, the driving licence of the driver shall be impounded as provided in Section 206(4). Section 183(1) is in the compounding list in Section 200, so the amount actually charged on a compounded challan is the one the State Government has notified, and the challan is the reliable source for it.
Section 183(3) provides that no person shall be convicted of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person was driving at an unlawful speed, unless that opinion is shown to be based on an estimate obtained by the use of some mechanical or electronic device. The legislature has decided that a bare human estimate will not do. What follows is that the prosecution has to be able to stand behind the device and its output, and a defence directed at the device is a defence the section itself invites.
Where the objections actually lie
- Identity of the vehicle. Read the plate in the image character by character rather than the number typed into the challan, and compare make, model, body type and colour. This is the commonest successful ground in any camera matter.
- The limit relied on. Which notification, and which sign at that location. A limit for a class of vehicle other than yours is not the limit that binds you.
- The class of vehicle. Section 183(1) sets different bands for light, medium and heavy vehicles. A challan that has applied the wrong band is defective on its face.
- The record of the device. The output of a camera is an electronic record. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 makes computer output admissible as a document on the conditions set out there, and Section 63(4) requires a certificate identifying the record, describing the manner of its production and giving particulars of the device, to be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is tendered for admission. That is not a technicality invented by the defence. It is the condition on which the document goes in.
- Duplication. One passage recorded twice, or the same event issued from two systems, is a defect that resolves on the face of the two entries.
How to run it
Save the challan screen and the photograph before anything else, because portal records get replaced. Raise the objection through an official channel so that it carries a reference number, and keep the number. Do not make a part payment: raise the objection before payment and check whether the demand is a civil penalty or compounding amount. The full sequence, including which grounds tend to succeed and which fail, is set out in our note on disputing an e-challan in Bengaluru.
Keep the licence consequence in view while deciding. Section 206(4) requires an officer who has reason to believe the driver has committed an offence under Section 183, among others, to seize the licence and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19, and the acknowledgement given does not authorise driving in the meantime. Section 200 also provides that compounding does not discharge the offender from proceedings under Section 206(4), and that a compounded offence is deemed a previous commission of the same offence for deciding whether a subsequent offence has been committed. Paying is therefore not always the neutral choice it looks like. How the licensing side of a traffic matter runs is set out in our guide on drunk driving penalties and licence suspension, where the same machinery is used.