Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Mahender Singh on 6 October, 2015

                                                              State Vs. Mahender Singh
                                                                          FIR No 96/14
                                                                    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. 96/14
PS Domestic Airport 
U/S :  4 DPT & M Act 
State V/s Mahender Singh
C/No.  21/02
U.ID No. 02405R0014492015

Date of Institution:                             09.02.2015

Name of the Complainant                          SI Rang Lal Meena
                                                 PIS No. 16970018
                                                 PS Domestic Airport.

Name and address of accused                      Mahender Singh
                                                 S/o Sh. Balkar Singh
                                                 R/o H. No. 921­522,
                                                 Harijan Basti, Mahipalpur,
                                                 New Delhi. 

Charge framed against accused                    U/S 4 DPTM Act

Plea of accused                                  Pleaded not guilty

Final Order                                      Convicted

Date for announcing the orders                   06.10.2015




C/No. 21/02                                                  Page No.    1 of 12
U.ID No. 02405R0014492015
                                                                       State Vs. Mahender Singh
                                                                                  FIR No 96/14
                                                                            PS Domestic Airport



                                              JUDGMENT:

­ Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed against accused Mahender Singh on 21.04.2015 "that on 21.11.2014 at about 4.00PM at Car Zone Parking, in front of Arrival Hall, Terminal­1, Domestic Airport, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport accused was trying to allure the passengers on pretext that he will provide cheap taxi and purchasing and provide 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

1. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 3 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 28.09.2015. Thereafter, statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which accused pleaded his innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused.

2. PW­1 Ct. Raghubir deposed that on 21.11.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport and was on duty at Arrival Hall, Terminal I D at Domestic Airport. At around 3 pm, accused Mahinder Singh was alluring the passengers coming from the Arrival Hall on the pretext of providing him cheap taxi service at hotel and C/No. 21/02 Page No. 2 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport shopping on discounted rates in his taxi bearing No. DL­2CAC­4570. He requested him not to do so many times, but, he did not pay any heed to the request and continued his conduct. At about 3:30 pm, SI R. L. Meena also came there and he also requested Mahender Singh to desist from his conduct, but, Mahender Singh did not pay any heed to his request also. Thereafter, he was apprehended. SI R. L. Meena prepared rukka and sent him to the PS for registration of the case. He went to the PS and got the case registered. In the meantime, R. L. Meena along with accused also came at the PS and carried out further investigation. He went to his duty thereafter.

On being cross examined by Ld. APP for the State he affirmed that after registration of FIR, Duty officer handed over to him the original tehrir and copy of FIR and he reached at the spot. He stated that he handed over both to SI R. L. Meena. He further affirmed that SI R. L. Meena arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/A. He further affirmed that his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW 1/B. He further affirmed that taxi of accused was also seized along with key through seizure memo Ex. PW 1/C. He further affirmed that IO had also made the site plan of the spot. He further affirmed that accused was released on bail and taxi of the accused was deposited in the malkhana. He further affirmed that his statement was recorded by the IO. He stated that he could not depose these facts due to lapse of time.

C/No. 21/02 Page No. 3 of 12

U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport In cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he denied the suggestion that he was not on duty on that day, that is why, he can't tell the DD entry number. He denied the suggestion that accused was not touting at that time, that is why, no senior officials were informed and no written work done. He further denied the suggestion that there was no traffic jam as road is wide enough at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused was not touting or that he was leaving after dropping the passengers, or that, accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that, IO prepared all the documents in the police station or that, he signed the documents in the PS. It is pertinent to mention here that two witnesses have been examined as PW­1 therefore, the numbering of DO will be read as PW1A.

3. PW­1A: HC Subhash Chand deposed that he was the Duty Officer at the relevant date and time who proved the FIR no. 96/14 as Ex. PW1A/A and his endorsement Ex. PW1A/B on the rukka.

4. PW3: SI Rang Lal deposed that on 21.11.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as SI. On that day, he was patrolling in the area and while patrolling when he reached in car zone parking in front of arrival hall of terminal­1 at 3:30 pm, he saw one person namely Mahender Singh had parked his taxi in front of the arrival hall and was alluring the passengers coming out from the arrival hall C/No. 21/02 Page No. 4 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport on the pretext of providing them taxi service and hotel in Delhi. He was also showing the passengers the way towards his taxi and was enticing them to sit in his taxi. Passengers were getting annoyed due to his behaviour. He further deposed that he requested him not to do so. Constable Raghuvir who was on duty at the arrival hall also came there and he also told him that he had also requested that person many time to desist from his conduct but he did not pay any heed to his requests. When Mahender Singh continued his conduct, he was apprehended. He prepared rukka Ex. PW3/A and sent Constable Raghubir to the PS for registration of the FIR. He prepared site plan Ex. PW3/B. In the mean time, constable Raghubir also reached at the spot after registration of FIR and handed over original tehrir and computerised copy. Thereafter, he arrested Mahender Singh vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A. Accused was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/B. Taxi bearing No. DL 2C AC 4570 along with the photocopy of documents was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. Accused Mahender Singh was released on bail. Taxi was deposited in the malkhana. He recorded the statement of constable Raghubir. After completion of investigation, he prepared challan and filed the same in the court through SHO. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.

In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not on patrolling duty on that day and all the proceedings were carried out in the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he has C/No. 21/02 Page No. 5 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport improved his statement before court regarding mentioning of FIR number on the site plan. He further denied the suggestion that the spot is covered by CCTV footage surveillance. He affirmed that as per rule, no car can station at the place where the car of accused was stationed at the time of incident for more than 3 to 4 minutes. He further affirmed that no statement of any public person was recorded by him. He further affirmed that the place where accused was standing some other persons were also standing. He further affirmed that the spot was crowded by people. He further affirmed that many taxis were standing alongwith taxi drivers at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that he did not ask anybody to join the investigation that is why no notice under section 160 Cr.PC is placed on record regarding denying or joining of investigation. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not touting or that he was leaving after dropping the passengers or that accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that he had prepared all the documents in PS or that he signed documents in the PS. Statement of accused and defence

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC were recorded. When all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused separately, distinctly and specifically to afford him an opportunity to explain the circumstances so put to him, but he did not offer a shred of evidence C/No. 21/02 Page No. 6 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport to prove his innocence except by saying that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Further accused did not lead any defence evidence in support of his claim of innocence.

Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions

6. 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 has been filed by way of evidence showing the accused was alluring or soliciting the passengers. It is also submitted that both the accused did not annoy any passenger.

7. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submitted that there is enough evidence against the accused as he tried to allure the passenger and also worked in tandem to influence the passenger at the Airport, which caused annoyance to the passenger.

C/No. 21/02 Page No. 7 of 12

U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport

8. 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 car driver of DL 2CAC 4570 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 despite the passenger was not interested going with him. PW­3 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version in entirety. These facts show that the accused was committing the offence of touting by indulging in illegal activity of enticing the passenger.

9. With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused that IO and the complainant is same person, to this argument, it is observed that when a crime is informed by any person who happens to be a police official of the same jurisdiction, he becomes complainant of the case and same does not preclude him from becoming the IO if the SHO hands over him the investigation of the case and accordingly, the contention put forth on behalf of accused is dismissed.

10. Also, the complainant in these cases are generally policemen as they have the duty to prevent touting at these places. Nowhere C/No. 21/02 Page No. 8 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport the law prevents a policeman to become complainant or competent witness. A policeman is as competent a witness as any other person and 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.

11. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused that despite arrival hall being crowded place, IO has not made any public person as witness, to this argument, it is observed that the testimony of police officials can be relied upon unless it suffers from doubts and failure to join any public person do not go to dismantle the case of prosecution entirely if the plausible explanation given by the police for not doing so, which in this case is given by the IO and accordingly, the argument is dismissed. Also, 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.

12. With respect to further argument raised on behalf of accused C/No. 21/02 Page No. 9 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport that the passenger which was allegedly allured/annoyed by them was not examined on behalf of prosecution, to this argument, it is observed that in most of the cases passengers avoid becoming part of the proceedings and therefore their non examination does not dent the case of the prosecution if it is otherwise trustworthy. It is quite likely that passengers are in hurry to reach their destination once they come out of their journey and they tend to ignore the disturbance created by unscrupulous persons who annoy them by forcing them to take their services and in these circumstances the passengers try to leave the place at the earliest to avoid further inconvenience. Even some time they were on the spot but they prefer not to become witness to legal proceedings as they fear that it may become onerous and expensive venture to them in future.

13. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused that CC TV footage of the spot has not been filed by the prosecution showing the presence of accused at the spot and indulging into touting, to this argument, it is observed that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is reliable, firm and unshaken by cross examination and accordingly, the same is relied upon by the Court and absence of CC TV footage is of no use when the testimony of witnesses is reliable and further the fact that no defence whatsoever has been led on behalf of accused.

C/No. 21/02 Page No. 10 of 12

U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport

14. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several unscrupulous TSR and cab driver allure passengers of cheap hotel, low fare and other benefits and in most of the cases they misbehave with the passengers who do not fall prey to their allurements and generally passengers avoid police action against them to avoid their future trouble. It is also noteworthy that absence of adequate police officials outside arrival hall give encouragement to these unlawful activities by these law breakers. Also, these people annoy the passengers in front of their families and friends thereby reducing the joy of their journey and exposing them to all sort of dangers. These illegal activities also show lack of effective policing. In these circumstances, the role of police assumes significance and stern and preventive action is required for stopping these illegal activities going around sophisticated place like Airport where people from all over the world come. Such incident of touting also diminishes the reputation and also brings bad name to our country in the world.

Conclusion

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and 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. Nothing favourable could be brought by the C/No. 21/02 Page No. 11 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015 State Vs. Mahender Singh FIR No 96/14 PS Domestic Airport counsel for the accused in defence 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 4 of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 and both the 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 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) today on this 6th day of October, 2015 MM ­01: Dwarka : Delhi C/No. 21/02 Page No. 12 of 12 U.ID No. 02405R0014492015