Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagmohan @ Mor Singh on 12 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF
SH. GAJENDER SINGH
NAGAR,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. JAGMOHAN @ MOR SINGH
FIR NO. 335/2014
PS: DARYA GANJ
U/S: 3 DPDP Act
JUDGMENT
New Case No. 300626/2016 CNR No. DLCTO20064322014 Date of commission of offence : 27.06.2014 Date of institution of the case : 18.10.2014 Name of the complainant Smt. Komal Bhandari Name of accused and address Jagmohan @ Mor Singh S/o Sh. Johri Lal Ro 3828, David Street, Darya Ganj, Delhi & 3808, David Street, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
Offence complained ofor proved U/s 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Final order Acquitted Date on which reserved for judgment: 12.10.2021 Date of judgment . 12.10.2021 FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 1/10
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION;
1. This is the prosecution of accused pursuant to charge sheet filed by P.S. Darya Ganj U/s 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 335/2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.2014, at time unknown, at property No. 3828, Bhandari Agencies, Hanging Bridge Building Chowk, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi, accused had put one board on the board of complainant, which was not for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner/ occupier of such property, but to gain personal benefit/ advertisement. The board was noticed by the complainant. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint to PS Darya Ganj and the present FIR was registered at instance of the complainant.
3 Thereafter, investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The accused appeared before the Court and on 10.07.2017, notice under section 251 Cr.P.c. for the offence U/s 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan Mor Singh Page 2/10MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
In order to prove its the prosecution examined four
4. case, Witnesses.
the complainant who
5. PW-I Smt. Komal Bhandari was
with the
deposed that she was having a shop-cum-clinic at Darya Ganj name Bhandari Agencies, 3828, Ground Floor, Chowk Darya Ganj, New Delhi-02. The said shop was in existence Netaji Subhash Marg, business of Homeopathic Medicines was since 1963 as the family said business started by her grand father. She was a partner in the had since 2013. There used to be big board outside their shop which a Mor Singh has been been put up by them. Accused Jagmohan at the upper floor of their shop for last more than 10 years. staying Accused put up his own board over their board in June, 2014. Despite accused did not his board. He had their repeated requests, the remove month. She also threatened their staff member Sh. Alam in the same then reported the matter to the police and met the SHO Sh. S N Jha, who lodged the present FIR after inspection of the spot. The complaint is Ex. PW1/A, through the same was not in her handwriting Subsequently, after 07.07.2014, the police officials had also removed that board. The photograph is Mark A-1.
6. PW-2 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 07.07.2014, he was on duty at MCD Demolition Programme at Nukkad Phase Bazar.
ASI Ishwar Singh handed over one complaint to HC Amit Kumar.
Thereafter, they reached at the spot and as per the complaint, the FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 3/10 accused affixed his sign board the sign board of the on complainant i.e. M/s Bhandari Agencies. 1O clicked the photographs of the sign board and prepared the rukka and handed over it to him for registration of FIR. He accordingly, went to Police Station and got the FIR registered through duty officer and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same were handed over to the 10. The rukka is Ex. Pw2/A. Seizure memo of the hoarding/board is Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station. Accused also came to the Police Station and 10 formally arrested him vide memo Ex. PW2/C. His personal search memo was prepared which is Ex. PW2/D. The photograph is Mark A-1.
7. PW-3 retired SI shwar Singh deposed that on 27.06.2014, a complaint bearing No. 514 Ex. PW1/A was marked to him by the SHO concerned for carrying and taking necessary action on the complaint. Subsequent to the complaint, he visited the property bearing No. 3828, Hanging Building Chowk, Darya Ganj, Delhi whereby he saw that the case property i.e. Flex banner board was hanging on the said property. Thereafter, he handed over the enquiry of the case to HC Amit Kumar on 07.07.2014, who got registered the FIR on the aforesaid complaint. The case property is Ex. PW3/A.
8. PW-4 SI Amit Kumar deposed that on 07.07.2014, he alongwith Ct. Anil Kumar, Ct. Jaipal, ASI Ishwar Singh and other police officials were present at and near the Nukkad Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj, Delhi, in a demolition programme being carried by the MCD. On the same day, a complaint bearing No. 514 Ex. PW1/A was FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 4/10 handed over to him by ASI Ishwar Singh who informed him that the said complaint in respect of hanging of case property at property bearing No. 3828, Hanging Building Chowk, Darya Ganj, Delhi was already received in the Police Station for carrying and taking necessary action on the complaint. On receipt of the after complaint and reading its content he took photograph of the case property and thereafter, he got removed the case property from the aforesaid building. He prepared rukka which is Ex. PW2/A and handed over the same to Ct. Amit for registration of FIR. Subsequent to that, Ct. Amit, after some time back with the rukka and FIR came alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He also prepared site plan Ex. PW4/1.
Subsequent to that he searched for the accused who could not be found that time. He also recorded the at statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.PC. He seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B which was later on in the Police deposited Station Malkhana. In the evening of 07.07.2014, he got to know that accused of the present has case already been arrested in another case and present in the police station only. He interrogated him in the police station only andduring interrogation, it was revealed by the accused that it was him who hanged the case property on the aforesaid building and thereafter on the basis of interrogation, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C. He also carried out his personal search memo Ex. PW4/2. As the offence was bailable, accused released on bail his on furnishing bail bond. The case property is Ex. PW3/A. The photograph is Mark A-1 was clicked by him. During interrogation, he also recorded the statement of Ct. Anil u/s 161 Cr.PC and other witnesses. Further during he interrogation, prepared and collected FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Gaj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 5/10 relevant documents pertaining to the case and filed the same in the chargesheet. After concluding the investigation, he prepared the complete charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court.
9. Since all the relevant/ material witnesses have been examined, hence prosecution evidence stands closed.
THE DEFENCE
10. Written statement of the accused U/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. has been filed on record. The accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity with the brother of the complainant as several Court litigations were going on between them. He however did not lead any evidence in defence.
THE ARGUMENTS:
11. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses have deposed against him and that accused has failed to show that he had no concern with the poster.
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that he has no concern with the banner/board, that he never got the same affixed and that he never defaced any property. He submits that the investigation is incomplete and improper as there is nothing to connect FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 6/10 him with the offence.
THE FINDINGS:
Offence U/s 3 DPDP Act:
13. The undersigned has heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused and have also perused the material available on record.
14. Section 3(1) of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 provides that "Penalty for defacement of property:-
(1) Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, 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.
(2) XXX (3) XXX
15. Though in the present matter advertisement board/banner belonging to accused was found affixed on the board of the complainant, however due to the following reasons the accused FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 7/10 MW deserves acquittal in the present matter:
The PWs who had allegedly visited the spot examined by the prosecution had not stated that they had seen anybody or the accused while affixing the said board at the spot and they also could not say as to who affixed the board at the spot. They did not come across any witness who might have seen any person affixing the board at the spot.
In the present matter, the allegation against the accused is
i) that one board/banner belonging to accused was found affixed on a board of the complainant. Now it has to be seen whether affixing board would amount to an offence U/s 3 of DPDP Act, or not. Prior to enactment of DPDP Act, West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 was prevalent in Delhi. Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is same to same as Section 3 of DPDP Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, is reproduced here which provides as under:-
"Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paints or any other material, except for the purpose of indicating the memo and address of the owner or occupies of such property, shall be punishable with punishment prescribed."
In a case titled as "T.S Marwah & Ors Vs. State", 2008(4) JJCC 2561 it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 8/10 Delhi that "mere putting of the banner will not be covered by Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. It is true Section 2 (aa) defines defacement which includes impairing or interfering with the appearance, beauty, damaging, distinguishing, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever, but Section 3(1) is not all embracing and it refers to only such type of defacement for the purpose of prosecution as is done by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material".
The question for determination in the present case is whether the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment and whether the aforementioned judgment also applicable to offence under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
Provisions of Section 3 of DPDP Act and Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act are similar to each other and therefore the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of 7.S Marwah Vs. State would also be applicable to the provision of Section 3 of DPDP Act.
In thesecircumstances, putting of banner/board on the board of the complainant having the name of the accused on it would not amount to an offence U/s 3 of DPDP Act.
16. In view of the above-stated circumstances, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 9/10Mw
17. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution IS Supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt accused in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the to acquittal.
above-stated
18. In the present matter, in view of the held that the prosecution has failed to discussions, it can be safely The evidence coming on beyond reasonable doubt.
prove its case
the accused to be acquitted in the present case.
record entitles
Therefore, accused Jagmohan M o r Singh is hereby acquitted from
charge leveled against him in the present matter. Requirements of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 12.10.2021 CMM (CENTRAL)/DLHI Containing 10 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No. 335/2014, PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jagmohan @ Mor Singh Page 10/10