Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Chabra on 15 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNEET PAHWA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLST02-002680-2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. ANIL CHABRA
FIR no. 67 /2020
PS Ambedkar Nagar
u/s 3 DPDP Act
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No.629/2021
B) The date of commission of : 22.01.2020
offence
C) The name of the complainant : ASI Billu Kumar, No. 4591/SD,
PIS No. 28902696, PS Ambedkar
Nagar, New Delhi.
D) The name and address of : Anil Chabra, S/o Sh. Kishan Lal
accused Chabra, R/o House no. F-1st/156,
Madangir, New Delhi.
E) Offence complained of : 3 DPDP Act
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : Acquittal
H) The date of such Order : 15.07.2023
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.02.2021
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 15.07.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 15.07.2023
FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.1 of 7
Digitally signed
PUNEET by PUNEET
PAHWA
PAHWA 16:52:20
Date: 2023.07.15
+0530
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State, against accused Anil Chabra. As per charge-sheet, on 22.01.2020 at about 06:45 PM, at Electricity Pole situated on Maharishi Balmiki Road, LSC Market, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ambedkar Nagar, accused had defaced property in public way by placing flex board/ hoarding of 'Chhabra Flex Board Banner Holding' and thereby allegedly had committed the offence punishable u/s 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property, 2007.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet, court took cognizance of the offence and the accused appeared on 29.07.2022, thereafter, he was supplied with copy of charge-sheet and documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Court framed notice against the accused for offence punishable under Section 3 of the DPDP Act. Notice was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During trial, the State examined one witness viz. PW-1 ASI Billu Kumar.
4. During examination in chief, PW-1 ASI Billu Kumar deposed that on 22.01.2020, he was posted as ASI at P.S. Amedkar Nagar. He alongwith Ct. Bijender were on beat patrolling at beat no. 10. at about 06:45 pm. When they reached near Maharishi Valmiki Road there he had seen that one flex board was affixed on the electric pole and 'Chhabra Flex Board Banner Holding 7/-* Mobile NO. 9811661054 143-B, Shop No. 4, Madangir, Opposite Birla Vidhya Nikatan, ND-62, Email:- Chhabra Flex Printing @ FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.2 of 7 Digitally signed PUNEET by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.07.15 16:52:29 +0530 Gmail.com' were written on that board. When he made the call at the mentioned number, the person disclosed him that he did not get any permission to affix the advertisement board. He had clicked the picture on his mobile phone and had taken out that board and seized it vide Memo Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter he prepared the Tehrir which is Ex.PW1/B and handed over the same to Ct. Bijender and got the FIR registered on the same.
5. During investigation, he had prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he interrogated accused and prepared the interrogation report which is Ex.PW1/D and bound down accused in the present case. Thereafter, he came back to the P.S. and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. After completing the investigation of the present case, he had prepared the charge-sheet and filed it before this Hon'ble Court. Witness identified accused before the Court. Witness also identified the case property i.e. Flex Board which was clicked by IO Ex. P-1 (Colly). PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defence.
6. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating material was put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments of both the parties were heard at length.
COURT OBSERVATION:
7. It is argued on behalf of accused that the name of accused was not on the hoarding. Further the telephone number mentioned on the FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.3 of 7 Digitally signed PUNEET by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.07.15 16:52:37 +0530 hoarding did not belong to the accused. No public witness was found present there. Further, accused was not seen by anyone while pasting the hoarding in question.
8. In order to establish its case, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:-
(a) Any act had been committed amounting to 'defacement' as defined in S. 3 of DPDP Act;
(b) Such defacement was of the 'public property' and;
(c) The act in question had been committed by the accused;
9. So far as the first and second ingredients are concerned, there is no doubt that hoarding found affixed on the property tantamount to defacement of public property as defined u/sec 2 of DPDP Act.
10. Now, the question under consideration before this Court is whether or not the hoarding in question were affixed by the accused on the said property and whether such hoarding violated any rule or law.
11. At the outset, there is no eye-witness to the pasting of the disputed hoarding, either from public or any police witness. Not only that, there is no public witness to the procedure of removal of the said hoarding from the property.
12. Additionally, the hoarding is shown to have been put on a building in a busy locality which is visited by several people. There is not a FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.4 of 7 Digitally signed PUNEET by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.07.15 16:52:45 +0530 single public witness who saw the accused pasting the same or any public person who saw the complainant at the time of inspection. Under these circumstances, it appears that no sincere effort was made to join respectable witnesses from the same locality.
13. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments. In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
14. In a case law reported as Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.5 of 7 Digitally signedPUNEET by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.07.15 16:52:54 +0530 "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner".
15. Neither the hoarding has been produced in original nor the said mobile phone from which photograph have been taken has been produced in the Court. The photographs are not supported by any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the complainant did not measure the hoarding and just made a guess work that it was beyond the permitted size.
16. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.6 of 7 Digitally signed PUNEET by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.07.15 16:53:00 +0530 prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also, accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
17. In view of the aforesaid, as neither there are any eye witnesses to the commission of the offence nor the chain establishing the circumstances in which the alleged hoarding had been affixed at the disputed site has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, I am of the opinion that the accused Anil Chabra, S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Chabra is entitled to be acquitted for offence u/sec 3 of the DPDP Act. Accused is acquitted accordingly. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on property receipt and identification. Accused is directed to furnish necessary personal bond under Section 437A CrPC.
18. Case property, if any, be confiscated to the State after the expiry of the period of the appeal.
19. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliances.
PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA 16:53:10 +0530 Date: 2023.07.15 (PUNEET PAHWA) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DISTRICT SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX Announced in the open Court On 15th of July, 2023 FIR No.67/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page No.7 of 7