Driver and his friends who resisted a traffic policeman imprisoned for 10 days

The Chilanzar district court on criminal proceedings heard an administrative case against a driver and his friends, who resisted the traffic patrol inspectors because the driver was suspected of installing an immobilizer on his car.

Allegedly, on the night of August 9 in Chilanzar district, a driver suspected of installing an immobilizer in his car was stopped by an employee of the traffic safety department. When the employee checked the driver’s documents, it was also found out that the vehicle windows were tinted without permission. The driver said that an illegal device was not installed in his car, and the car made a cracking sound due to a technical malfunction. The car was taken to the penalty area to clarify the situation.

After that, a dispute arose between the young men who arrived at the penalty area with the call of the driver and the traffic police officer.

The court heard testimony from both sides and witnesses. The inspector of the traffic patrol said that the driver and his friends resisted while drawing up a protocol and did not obey the lawful requirements. The driver stated that the traffic policeman made a pledge with him to prove that he installed an illegal device in the car and his friends were treated rudely. 

During the incident, one of the driver’s friends removed the tinting from the car windows. According to the driver, he was initially advised to do so by the traffic police officer, but was later told not to do so, after a warning call from other inspectors. The traffic inspector said that he did not tell the guys that the tinting should be removed.

Judge Sarvar Mamadiyev reminded that the court will consider not the violation of traffic rules, but the complaint filed by the traffic inspectors against the young men on the charges of disobedience to the representative of the authority and committing petty hooliganism.

The court that considered the case made a decision.

According to it, the driver’s friend - the citizen who took part in the quarrel and removed the car tinting - was found to have committed an offense under Article 183 (Petty hooliganism) and Article 194-1 (Failure to comply with the legal requirements of an officer of internal affairs) of the Administrative Responsibility Code. He was sentenced to 5 days of administrative imprisonment under Article 83 of the Criminal Code, imposed a fine in the amount of 1 BCA (300,000 soums) under Article 194-1, and 10 days of administrative imprisonment under Article 34 of the Administrative Responsibility Code.

The driver and his other friend were sentenced to 10 days of administrative imprisonment based on Article 183 and Article 194-1 of the Administrative Responsibility Code.

Another citizen, who did not get involved in the fight, but arrived at the penalty area with other young men, was found to have committed an offense under Article 183 of the Administrative Responsibility Code and was fined twice as much as the BCA.