Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Sah on 24 March, 2014
State Vs. Vinod Sah
FIR No. 16/13
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 16/13
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/S Arun Singh
C/No. 61/02
U.ID No. 02405R0211812013
Date of Institution: 04.06.2013
Name of the Complainant SI Narpal Singh, No. D3776
PIS NO. 28861390,
PS Domestic Airport,
New Delhi.
Name and address of accused Vinod Sah
s/o Late Sh. Dhanuk Sah
r/o H.No.8/241,
Mehram Nagar,
New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of reserve for orders 24.03.2014
Date for announcing the orders 24.03.2014
C/No. 61/02 Page No. 1 of 8
U.ID No.02405R0211812013
State Vs. Vinod Sah
FIR No. 16/13
PS Domestic Airport
The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1.Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed against the accused that on on 14.02.2013 at 12.10pm at Car Zone Parking, Terminal 1 B, Domestic Airport, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Domestic Airport the accused was trying to allure the passengers on pretext that the accused will provide them cheap travelling and purchasing and provide them room in hotel on low fare and thereby harassing them and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Ordinance Act, 2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 4 witnesses in the list of witnesses and examine 3 out of them. PE stood closed on 07.03.2014. Thereafter, statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which accused pleaded his innocence. No defence evidence was led by accused.
3. PW1 HC Brahma Nand deposed that he was the Duty Officer at the relevant time who proved the FIR no. 16/13 as Ex. PW1/A and he also made his endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka.
4. PW2 HC Ram Pal deposed that on the intervening night of C/No. 61/02 Page No. 2 of 8 U.ID No.02405R0211812013 State Vs. Vinod Sah FIR No. 16/13 PS Domestic Airport 13/14.02.2013 he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as HC and on that day he was deployed in front of Arrival Hall Domestic Airport from 07.00 PM to 08.00 AM and at about 11.40 PM SI Narpal Singh came at Arrival Hall while patrolling. He further deposed that at about 12.10 AM one person namely Vinod Sah s/o Dhanuk Sah was found indulging in alluring the passengers coming from the Arrival Hall to provide them cheap taxi and hotels. SI Narpal requested that person not to do so as the passengers were getting annoyed by his behaviour but he did not pay any heed to the request of SI Narpal. He further deposed that person was also following the passengers and indicating towards the Wagon R car DL 3 C A D 8992 parked opposite to the Arrival Hall. He further deposed that SI Narpal with his assistance apprehended Vinod Sah and SI Narpal prepared a rukka Mark X and handed over the same to him for registration of the case. Thereafter he went to PS and got the present case registered through DO and returned back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and computerized copy of FIR to SI Narpal. Vinod Sah was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. Wagon R car was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B, bearing his signature at point A. The accused was released on bail and the Wagon R car was deposited in malkhana. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified the accused Vinod Sah the court.
5. PW3 SI Narpal Singh deposed that on the intervening night of C/No. 61/02 Page No. 3 of 8 U.ID No.02405R0211812013 State Vs. Vinod Sah FIR No. 16/13 PS Domestic Airport 13/14.02.2013, he was posted at Domestic Airport as SI and was on patrolling duty in the area. At around 12.10mid night, when he reached opposite to the arrival of Terminal 1B, HC Rampal was found on duty there. The passengers were coming out from the arrival hall. In the meantime, they noticed that one person was alluring the passengers on the pretext of providing them cheap taxi service and hotel and that person was also following the passengers and indicating towards one Wegon R car parked opposite to the arrival hall and was offering the taxi service on cheap fare, due to which the tourists/passengers were getting annoyed and they were objecting his activities. He further deposed that they went to the person and advised him not to do so but he continued in his act. Thereafter, he apprehended the said person whose name on inquiry was revealed as Vinod Kumar Shah and on interrogation, he stated that he took the tourists from the arrival hall in his private car bearing no. DL 3C AD 8992 and dropped them in hotels known to him and get commissions from the hotels. The car was also found parked opposite to the arrival hall. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW3/A and sent HC Rampal to the PS for registration of the case. The car was also seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/B which bears his signature at point B. After registration of the case HC Rampal returned back to the spot and handed over to him original tehrir and compurterised copy of FIR. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. He further deoposed that he recorded the statement of HC Rampal. Accused was C/No. 61/02 Page No. 4 of 8 U.ID No.02405R0211812013 State Vs. Vinod Sah FIR No. 16/13 PS Domestic Airport released on bail. After the completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed it in the Court through SHO.
Statement of accused and defence
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused person U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. When all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused person to afford him an opportunity to explain the circumstances so put to him, but did not offer a shred of evidence to prove his innocence except by saying that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Further accused person did not lead any defence evidence in support of his claim of innocence.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the case of the prosecution should not be believed as IO of the case is complainant himself. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that it is not in accordance with principles of natural justice that a complainant himself investigate the case and files the charge sheet against a person. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that despite airport being a busy place, no public persons have been made witnesses to the proceedings carried out by the IO. It is further argued that despite CC TV installed on all the places in the airport, no footage C/No. 61/02 Page No. 5 of 8 U.ID No.02405R0211812013 State Vs. Vinod Sah FIR No. 16/13 PS Domestic Airport has been filed by way of evidence showing the accused was alluring or soliciting the passengers.
8. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submitted that there is enough evidence against the accused and there is no legal bar that a complainant cannot become the IO of the case.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides. This case was registered against the accused for offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. The accused is a TSR driver and was soliciting and alluring the passengers outside the arrival hall and as per the prosecution case accused was alluring the passengers outside arrival hall by saying that he will ferry them in a cheap rate and also provide site scene and also trying to keep the baggages of the passengers in his TCR despite the passengers were not interested going with him. PW3 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version and entirety. In his cross examination he stated that he asked the public persons to join investigation but everyone refused. He further stated that he asked the passenger who was being bullied by the accused but he also refused to divulge his personal information. PW2 who was with the IO on the day of offence also supported the prosecution case. In his cross examination he stated that name and address of the passengers were not noted by the IO who was being bullied by the accused. It is in knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several C/No. 61/02 Page No. 6 of 8 U.ID No.02405R0211812013 State Vs. Vinod Sah FIR No. 16/13 PS Domestic Airport unscrupulous TSR and cab driver allure the passengers of cheap hotel, low fare and other benefits and most of the cases TSRs do not have registration with the PrePaid Taxi Booth. It is also common that generally passengers do not want to become witness to any legal proceedings and they avoid becoming witnesses or even complain so as to prevent further harassment of them in legal proceedings. The complainant in these cases are policemen who have the duty to prevent touting at these places. Nowhere the law prevents a policeman to become complainant or competent witness. A policeman is as competent as witness as any other person where the testimony of policeman is reliable and trustworthy and plausible explanation is given by the police for not making any public person as witness, the testimony can be relied upon. Considering the handicaps of the policeman in these cases and the evidence on record, this court is convinced that accused has committed the offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. It is not very uncommon that Public persons are generally reluctant to join as a witness and appear before the court as a witness. In State of U.P. Vs Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686, it is observed that "it is also not proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable". Even otherwise if the evidence on record is sufficient to nail the accused, the same does not become tainted by reason of absence of any public person as witness.
C/No. 61/02 Page No. 7 of 8U.ID No.02405R0211812013 State Vs. Vinod Sah FIR No. 16/13 PS Domestic Airport Conclusion
10. In the light of the aforesaid facts, this court is of the considered view that nothing favourable could be brought by the counsel for the accused during the cross examination of the witnesses and prosecution has firmly established its case against the accused beyond the shadows of doubt. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that accused committed the offence u/s Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. and accused is accordingly convicted for the same.
Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Order on sentence will be pronounced after hearing the convict.
Announced in the Open Court (PANKAJ SHARMA)
th
today on 24 day of March, 2014 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi
C/No. 61/02 Page No. 8 of 8
U.ID No.02405R0211812013