Delhi District Court
State vs . Jaiwant Singh Etc. on 15 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 6372017
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Punjabi Bagh
State Vs. Jaiwant Singh etc.
Case ID No. 64792018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 64792018
2. Date of commission of offence 04.11.2017
3. Name of complainant Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav
4. Name of accused persons (1) Jaiwant Singh
S/o. Sh. Raja Singh
R/o; M/s. Tech. Export Institute of
advance Tech., Ahead Gandhi
Cycle Metro Gate No. 1, Tilak
Nagr, new Delhi and also at H.No.
C45A, Flats Tilak,Vihar, New
Delhi.
(2) Lalit Dixit
S/o. Sh. Suender Dixit
R/o; American Institute of English
Language at A3/8, 2nd Floor,
Opposite Bank of Baroda, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi and also at H. No.
State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 1/10
A119, Palam Extn.
Sector7, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 3 DPDP Act
6. Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 15.01.2019
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused persons have been sent for trial on the allegations that on 04.11.2017, at Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, accused persons had defaced the public property by pasting posters each as shown in the photograph Ex. P1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as DPDP Act).
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused persons were summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons and the matter was adjourned for arguments on notice.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined three State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 2/10 witnesses. The testimony of the said witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Vikram Singh. PW1 deposed that on 20.1.2018, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as HC and on that day further investigation of the case was marked to him. PW1 further deposed that during further investigation of the case, he had given notice of appearance to the accused Jaiwant Singh on 03.03.2018 and to accused Lalit Dixit on 14.06.2018 and after explaining the allegations against them, they were bound down in the present matter. PW1 further deposed that after completion of the investigation, he had prepared the challan and filed the same in the court. Both accused persons are present in the court today (correctly identified).
(b)PW2 is HC Laxmi Naryan. PW2 deposed that on 15.11.2017, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as HC. PW2 further deposed that on that day a written complaint from SDMC was marked to him for the registration of FIR by the SHO. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint, he got the FIR No. 6372018, u/s. 3 DPDP Act registered and investigated the present case. Thereafter, he called the complainant/Inspector SDMC namely Suresh Kr. Yadav appeared in person in the PS and recorded his statement. PW2 further deposed that after that, he alongwith SDMC Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav went to the spot i.e. State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 3/10 Club Road, New Delhi. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they returned to the PS.
(c)PW3 is Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav. PW3 deposed that on 04.11.2017, he was on inspection duty in the jurisdiction of Punjabi Bagh and when he reached in the area of Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and during the inspection it was found that illegal/unauthorized display of commercial advertisement through paper posters were displayed on the boundary wall of vacant land, near Paschim Puri Chowk on Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. PW3 further deposed that on the said wall of one more poster was pasted, which belongs to Lalit Dixit. PW3 further deposed that after inspection, it was found that the advertiser whose illegal display of advertisement have been found running on Government Public property, have not obtained any prior permission u/s. 142 and 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Thereafter, he took the photographs of the said posters. The same are Ex. P1 and P2. PW3 further deposed that thus for displaying illegal commercial advertisement without permission from the SDMC contravenes DMC Act and whosoever who defaces the property is also liable for prosecution under the provisions of the DPDP Act2007. PW3 further deposed that under the said act whoever defaces any State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 4/10 property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. After that he dispatched the complaint dated 10.11.2017, which is Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signature at point A, for lodging an FIR u/s. 3 of DPDP Act against the displayer of advertisement. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the spot on his instance. IO recorded his statement. This illegal display belongs to Jaywant Dixit.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons have admitted the allegations however stated that they were not aware about the Defacement of Property Act. Accused persons had not led any evidence in their defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of defacement of the public property by accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 5/10 persons are liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused persons have stated that they were not aware about the Act and have stated that the posters were put just to bring to the notice of public.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused persons.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused persons are entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused persons to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 6/10 accused persons.
(iv) Photographs of the posters are on record. The photographs clearly reveals that the posters were put on the boundary wall. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are the material witnesses show that the accused persons had committed the offence of defacement of the public property/boundary wall by pasting the posters. Moreover, accused persons have also admitted the allegations of putting of posters in their statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 PW2 and PW3 are reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: on 20.1.2018, I was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as HC and on that day further investigation of the case was marked to me. During further investigation of the case, I had given notice of appearance to the accused Jaiwant Singh on 03.03.2018 and to accused Lalit Dixit on 14.06.2018 and after explaining the allegations against them, they were bound down in the present matter. After completion of the investigation, I had prepared the challan and filed the same in the court. Both accused persons are present in the court today (correctly identified). PW2: on 15.11.2017, I was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as HC. On that day a written complaint from SDMC was marked to me for the registration of FIR by the SHO. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint, I got the FIR No. 6372018, u/s. 3 DPDP Act registered and investigated the present case. Thereafter, I called the complainant/Inspector SDMC namely Suresh Kr.
State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 7/10 Yadav appeared in person in the PS and recorded his statement. Thereafter, I alongwith SDMC Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav went to the spot i.e. Club Road, New Delhi. Thereafter, I prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, we returned to the PS. PW3: On 04.11.2017, I was on inspection duty in the jurisdiction of Punjabi Bagh and when I reached in the area of Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and during the inspection it was found that illegal/unauthorized display of commercial advertisement through paper posters were displayed on the boundary wall of vacant land, near Paschim Puri Chowk on Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. On the said wall of one more poster was pasted, which belongs to Lalit Dixit. After inspection, it was found that the advertiser whose illegal display of advertisement have been found running on Government Public property, have not obtained any prior permission u/s. 142 and 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Thereafter, I took the photographs of the said posters. The same are Ex. P1 and P2. Thus for displaying illegal commercial advertisement without permission from the SDMC contravenes DMC Act and whosoever who defaces the property is also liable for prosecution under the provisions of the DPDP Act2007. Under the said act whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. After that I dispatched the complaint dated 10.11.2017, which is Ex. PW3/A, bearing my signature at point A, for lodging an FIR u/s. 3 of DPDP Act against the displayer of advertisement. During investigation, State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 8/10 IO prepared the site plan of the spot on my instance. IO recorded my statement. This illegal display belongs to Jaywant Dixit. ".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW1 PW2 and PW3, nothing has been made out in favour of the accused persons. There is nothing on record to doubt the same.
(vi) Reliance can be placed upon Anil Bhatia vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as WP(C) NO. 6711/2013 wherein the court held that "unregulated putting up of Poster/ Banners/ Hoarding on the public property lead to public nuisance and runs counter to public order within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution."
(vii) Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought on record that defacement of the public property was done by the accused persons. The cumulative and corroborating testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 also clearly prove that the accused persons have committed the offence under Section 3 DPDP Act.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 9/10 Hence, accused persons are hereby convicted for said offence.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH
Judgment dictated and JITENDRADate:
SINGH SINGH
2019.01.15
14:23:54 +0530
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 15th January, 2019
(This judgment consists of 10 pages)
State Vs. Jaiwant etc. ; FIR No. 637-17; PS PB 10/10
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 6372017 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Punjabi Bagh State Vs. Jaiwant Singh etc. Case ID No. 64792018 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Both Convict present in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Convict(s) on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict (s) that they are the sole bread earner for their family. It is further submitted that they are not previous convict and they are first time offender. Convict(s) have prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict(s) have been convicted for offence State Vs. Jaiwant Singh etc.; FIR No. 637-2017; PS PB 2/2 punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act. No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convict(s). The convict(s) are not involved in any such case, as stated by them. Convict(s) are having a family to support.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict(s) are facing trial for defacing the public property by pasting the posters and they are first time offender. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict(s) are admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, convict(s) are directed to deposit Rs. 1000/each as the cost of the proceedings of the court. Cost has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH i.e. the 15th January, 2019 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Jaiwant Singh etc.; FIR No. 637-2017; PS PB 2/2
State Vs. Jaiwant Singh etc.; FIR No. 637-2017; PS PB 2/2