Delhi District Court
State vs . Aman on 14 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAKANKSHA VYAS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
FIR No. 285/2022
PS : IGI Airport
State Vs. Aman
JUDGMENT
(a) S. No. of the Case : 8103/2022
(b) Date of Commission of Offence : 12.07.2022
(c) Name of the complainant : HC Hari Singh, PIS No. 28030453, PS:IGI Airport, New Delhi.
(d) Name,parentage & address of : Aman, S/o Sh. Abhe,
accused R/o Dhigana, (47) Jind,
Haryana.
(e) Offence charged : Offence U/s 4 (C) of Delhi
Prevention of Touting and
Malpractice against Tourists
Act.
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Judgment reserved on : 07.02.2023
(h) Date of Decision : 14.02.2023
(i) Decision : Acquitted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The case adumbrated by the prosecution is that on 12.07.2022 at about 06:30 pm, HC Hari Singh was present at Departure Gate No. 8, T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi and during FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 1 of 7 patrolling he found the accused namely Aman soliciting the passengers by alluring them with cheap conveyance and hotel which was causing annoyance to the passengers. Further, the accused was also using his car bearing no. HR56B5782 for this purpose. Thereafter, the accused along with his car bearing no. HR56B5782 was taken to Police Station IGI Airport by the complainant and after completion of formalities, the present case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4(c) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Act, 2010 (hereinafter, referred to as "DPTMT Act").
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the accused was filed on 01.09.2022. After appearance of accused, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to him and notice U/s 251 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was served upon him for the offence U/s 4(C) (DPTMT) Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined HC Hari Singh/complainant as PW-1. He deposed that on 12.07.2022, he was near Departure Gate No. 8, T-3 IGI Airport and found the accused indulging in touting activities with international passengers. PW-1 further deposed that he asked the accused as to why he was touting but the accused ignored him and again started touting with international passengers. Further, the accused had also stationed his WagonR Bearing no. HR56B5782 near the Departure Gate no. 8. As per PW-1, he apprehended and took accused to PS FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 2 of 7 and handed him over to SHO PS IGI Airport and on the instructions of SHO, he handed over the accused to IO/SI Prem Narayan. PW-1 proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A and deposed that he was a witness to the arrest memo of accused prepared by the IO in his presence which is Ex.PW1/B and seizure memo of Wagon R car bearing no. HR56B5782 i.e. Ex.PW1/C. PW-1 also correctly identified the accused before the court. Identity of Wagaon R car bearing no. HR56B5782 was not disputed by the Ld. counsel for accused. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
U/s 294 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted the present FIR which is ExP-1 and certificate u/s 65-B pertaining thereto which is Ex.P-2. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
4. The accused was examined u/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he admitted being present at the spot on the date and time of the incident in question. However, he stated that he had been falsely implicated but he did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard. The Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts as no public witness had been joined during the investigation and the presence of PW-1 at the spot had also not been proved by the prosecution during the trial. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State contended that the accused had not denied his presence at the spot at the time of the incident in question nor had he led any defence evidence to rebut the case of the prosecution. It was also contended that in view of FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 3 of 7 the credit-worthy testimony of PW-1 which was not impeached during cross-examination, the offence charged against the accused stood proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and scrupulously gone through the record of the case.
6. Before returning any finding, it is apposite to refer to the relevant sections of the DPTMT Act.
Section 4 of the DPTMT Act provides that:- No person shall:- (a) commit any act of touting or malpractice against any tourist; (b) abet commission of any act of touting or malpractice against any tourist; (c) attempt to commit any act of touting or malpractice against any tourist.
Section 2(f) of the DPTMT Act defines touting as :-Touting includes enticing, misguiding or coercing for shopping, accommodation, transportation, sight-seeing or pestering for any particular premises, including the precincts thereof, any person, establishment, dealer or manufacturer for personal consideration
7. Having referred to the provisions relevant for the adjudication of this case, I now turn to the evidence adduced on record. The testimony of the complainant has already been reproduced in paragraph 3. The testimony of PW1 shows that he has simply deposed that the accused was indulging in touting activity with international passengers and he was using his car for this purpose. However, he has failed to describe in his testimony as FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 4 of 7 to how exactly the accused was indulging in this activity. The term 'touting' carries a specific connotation as per the DPTMT Act and it was imperative for PW1 to describe the activity of the accused to enable the court to determine whether the same could be considered to be touting and hence an offence punishable under section 4 of the Act. However, the testimony of PW1 is silent on this aspect. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is bound to fail on this count alone.
8. Further, the prosecution has also not examined any public witness in support of its case. It is trite to state that there is no absolute command of law that testimony of a police witness alone cannot be relied upon and ordinary public is generally reluctant to come forward to join criminal proceedings. However, whether such testimony may or may not be relied upon would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, there is also a catena of judgments to the effect that although it is true that the ordinary public is generally reluctant to join police proceedings, police officials must at least make sincere efforts to join public persons during such proceedings. For this purpose, the police officials are also empowered to initiate proceedings u/s 187 IPC if any person does not cooperate with them despite giving notice. In this context, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case titled Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Crl LJ 127 Delhi and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case titled Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314.
FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 5 of 7But in the present case, firstly, the testimony of PW1 does not show that any effort was even made to join public persons during the investigation. Secondly, in the present case, the testimony of public witnesses was crucial for the case of the prosecution as the testimony of PW1 falls short of proving the offence against the accused as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
9. Furthermore, the complainant/PW1 has deposed that when he apprehended the accused, he was present at Departure Gate no. 8 at T-3 IFI airport. However, no departure entry has been proved by PW1 to prove his presence at the spot. The police officials are under the statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In the absence of the arrival and departure entry of PW1 on the record, the presence of PW1 at the spot is also not proved.
10. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Moroever, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and therefore the testimony of the PWs themselves per se must be creditworthy and further the prosecution also cannot FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 6 of 7 derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal. In the present case also, for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused Aman S/o Sh. Abhe is is acquitted of the offence charged.
11. Ordered Accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 14th February, 2023.
This judgment contains seven pages and each page is signed by me.
(AAKANKSHA VYAS) ACMM-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI/14.02.2023 FIR No:- 285/2022 State v. Aman Page No. 7 of 7