Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep Kumar Etc. on 10 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 5482017
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Tilak Nagar
State Vs. Pradeep Kumar etc.
Case ID No. 1022018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 1022018
2. Date of commission of offence 11.11.2017
3. Name of complainant HC Raj Kumar
4. Name of accused persons (1) Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Ram
Baks, R/o; G6/69, 3rd Floor, Sector
16, Rohini, Delhi and C70, NFL
Township, Panipat, Haryana.
(2) Paras Sharma S/o Late sh. Ram
Babu Sharma, R/o; H.No. 42, Barti
Artist Colony, Preet Vihar, 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 10.07.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused persons have been sent for trial on the allegations that on 11.11.2017, at about 4.00 pm, near Tilak Nagar Metro Station, Gate State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 1/8 No. 1, New Delhi, accused persons defaced the public property by putting the poster for commercial advertisement on the electricity pole and thus defaced the public property 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 charge.
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 one witness. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Raj Kumar. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted as PS Tilak Nagar as HC. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Parvesh were on patrolling duty in Beat No. 8 and while patrolling when they reached near Tilak Nagar Metro Station, Gate No. 1, they saw that one poster was affixed on electric pole by State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 2/8 the name of Heera Sweets, Ram Babu Sharma Group. He further deposed that he clicked the photograph of the said poster and the poster was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that after that tehrir was prepared by him, which is Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act, through Ct. Parvesh. After that he prepared the site plan of the spot, which is Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. He deposited the said poster into malkhana. He further deposed that on the same day after investigation, he arrested the accused namely Pardeep Kumar, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signature at point A and he narrated the entire facts of the case. After that he released him on police bail as the offence was bailable. He further deposed that the photocopy regarding the certificate of registration of an eating house issued by the office of Joint Commissioner of Police Licensing, Delhi in favour of Paras Sharma was also obtained by him during investigation, which is Mark A. He further deposed that on 30.01.2018, he collected the authorization letter for managing the Heera Sweet Outlet from its registered owner Paras Sharma, which is Ex. PW1/X and attested by him at point A. He recorded the statement of Ct. Parvesh. After that he filed the charge sheet before the court. He further deposed State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 3/8 that further on the direction of the court, the beneficiary of the advertisement was investigated by him and he filed the supplementary charge sheet against the other accused namely Paras Sharma, who is the registered owner of the said shop. He further deposed that accused persons are present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness. At this stage, photograph of the said poster, which is on record are shown to the witness, who correctly identified the same. The same is Ex. P1.
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 persons are liable to be convicted in this case.
State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 4/8 On the other hand, accused persons have stated that they were not aware about the Act and have stated that the said poster was put just to bring to the notice of public about the advertisement of the shop.
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 persons. 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 accused persons.
State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 5/8
(iv) PW1 has placed on record the photograph of the poster. The photograph clearly reveals that the poster was put on the electricity pole. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1, who is the material witnesses show that the accused persons had committed the offence of defacement of the public property by putting the poster on the electricity pole. Moreover, accused persons have also admitted the allegations of putting of the poster in their statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 is reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: On 11.11.2017, I was posted as PS Tilak Nagar as HC. On that day, I alongwith Ct.
Parvesh were on patrolling duty in Beat No. 8 and while patrolling when we reached near Tilak Nagar Metro Station, Gate No. 1, we saw that one poster was affixed on electric pole by the name of Heera Sweets, Ram Babu Sharma Group. After that, I clicked the photograph of the said poster and the poster was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, tehrir was prepared by me which is Ex. PW1/B. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act, through Ct. Parvesh. After that I prepared the site plan of the spot, which is Ex.
PW1/C, bearing my signature at point A. I deposited the said poster into malkhana.
Thereafter, on the same day after investigation, I arrested the accused namely Pardeep Kumar, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D, bearing my signature at point A and I narrated the entire facts of the case. After that I released him on police bail as the offence was bailable. The photocopy regarding State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 6/8 the certificate of registration of an eating house issued by the office of Joint Commissioner of Police Licensing, Delhi in favour of Paras Sharma was also obtained by me during investigation, which is Mark A. On 30.01.2018, I collected the authorization letter for managing the Heera Sweet Outlet from its registered owner Paras Sharma, which is Ex. PW1/X and attested by me at point A. I recorded the statement of Ct. Parvesh. After that I filed the charge sheet before the court.
Further on the direction of the court,the beneficiary of the advertisement was investigated by me and I filed the supplementary charge sheet against the other accused namely Paras Sharma, who is the registered owner of the said shop. Both accused persons are present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness. At this stage, photograph of the said poster, which is on record are shown to the witness, who correctly identified the same. The same is Ex. P1.
".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW1, 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 State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 7/8 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 testimony of PW1 also clearly proves 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. Hence, accused persons are hereby convicted for said offence.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH
SINGH Date:
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
2018.07.10
13:26:19 +0530
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 10th of July, 2018
(This judgment consists of 8 pages)
State Vs. Pardeep etc.; FIR No. 548/17; PS Tilak Nagar 8/8
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 5482017 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Tilak Nagar State Vs. Pradeep Kumar etc. Case ID No. 1022018 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Both Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as both Convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict persons 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 persons have prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict persons be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict persons have been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act. No previous conviction has been State Vs. Pardeep Kr. etc; FIR No. 548-17; PS TN 2/2 alleged or proved against convict persons. The convict persons are not involved in any such case, as stated by them. Convict persons are having a family to support.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict persons are facing trial for defacing the public property by putting poster for commercial advertisement and they are first time offender. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict persons 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 persons are directed to deposit Rs. 1000/ each as the cost of the proceedings of the court. The same has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH i.e. the 10th July , 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Pardeep Kr. etc; FIR No. 548-17; PS TN 2/2
State Vs. Pardeep Kr. etc; FIR No. 548-17; PS TN 2/2