Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Yajurvedi on 4 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. RAVI YAJURVEDI
FIR NO. 324/2023
PS (KALKAJI)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 1320/2024 institution 09.02.2024.
Date of commission of offence 04.08.2023. Name of the complainant HC DINESH Name of the accused RAVI YAJURVEDI Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 27.09.2025. Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 04.10.2025.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act on the allegations that on 04.08.2023, at about 04:15 P.M., Near J-3, DDA Flat, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, one board was found affixed on an electricity pole containing the words "KPC Kalkaji Tuition Center Ravi Sir, 9313183987, J-3, DDA Market"
was found affixed. It is alleged that the accused had affixed the said board containing the above said words on public property in public view.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 09.02.2024 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Copy of charge sheet Digitally signed by was supplied to accused on 07.06.2024 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.04 for offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to accused on the same 16:21:00 +0530 FIR No. 324/2023 State Vs. Ravi Yajurvedi Page No. 1/5 date, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before recording of prosecution evidence, accused admitted copy of FIR without admitting contents thereof. To prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW1 HC Dinesh Chahal, who is complainant as well as Investigating Officer in the present matter, on 04.08.2023, he was posted as HC at PS Kalkaji. On that day, at around 04:15 PM he along with Ct. Mubin were on patrolling duty and when they reached near J-3, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, New Delhi, they noticed one flex board was found affixed on an electricity pole containing the words "KTC" and some other words and 02 Mobile numbers. He had taken the photographs of the said board and after that the board was removed from the pole. He then seized it vide seizure memo as Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW1/2 and handed over to Ct. Mubin for registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, Ct. Mubin returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B of IEA to him as the investigation of the case was marked to him. He had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/3. He then contacted on the mobile number which was mentioned on the board and it was responded by the accused. He then informed him about the commission of the offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act and asked him to come to the spot and subsequently accused came to the spot and met him. In the meantime he requested one public person to join the investigation and recorded his statement and placed the same on record. He then served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC upon the accused and bound down him in the present case. The notice is as Ex.PW1/4. He then inquired the accused vide interrogation report Ex.PW1/5 and released the accused. He along with Ct. Mubin and case property went to the PS where he deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He then recorded statement of Ct. Mubin u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. Digitally signed by NUPUR After the completion of investigation he prepared the charge-sheet and NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.04 submitted before the Court. He has correctly identified the accused, 16:21:13 +0530 FIR No. 324/2023 State Vs. Ravi Yajurvedi Page No. 2/5 photographs of the case property and case property which are on judicial record as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
5. PW2 Ct. Mohd. Mubin, he deposed that on 04.08.2023, he was posted as Constable at PS Kalkaji. On that day at around 04:15 P.M., he along with HC Dinesh Chahal were on patrolling duty and when they reached near J-3, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, New Delhi, they noticed one flex board was found hanging on an electricity pole containing the words "KTC" and some other words and 02 Mobile numbers. HC Dinesh Chahal had taken the photographs of the said board and after that the said board was taken down. HC Dinesh Chahal seized the same vide seizure memo as Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, HC Dinesh Chahal prepared the rukka in his presence and gave him for registration of FIR. After that he had left the spot for PS. After the registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s 65B of IEA to HC Dinesh Chahal as the investigation of the case was marked to him. HC Dinesh Chahal had prepared site plan in his presence Ex.PW1/3. HC Dinesh Chahal then contacted on the mobile number which was mentioned on the board and it was responded by the the accused.
HC Dinesh Chahal informed him about the commission of the offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act and asked him to come to the spot and subsequently accused came to the spot and met him. In the meantime, IO requested public persons to join the investigation and one person namely Vinod Kumar joined the proceedings. IO then recorded his statement and placed the same on record. HC Dinesh Chahal then served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC upon the accused as Ex. PW1/4 and bound down him in the present case. IO then inquired the accused vide interrogation report as Ex.PW1/5 and released the accused after completion of due interrogation. He along with IO and case property went to the PS where IO deposited the case property in the Digitally signed by NUPUR Malkhana. IO also recorded his statement in the present case. He has correctly NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.04 16:21:27 identified the accused and photographs of the case property which are on +0530 FIR No. 324/2023 State Vs. Ravi Yajurvedi Page No. 3/5 judicial record as Ex. P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed on 30.06.2025.
7. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2025, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence and chose to lead any defence evidence. However, subsequently, vide separate statement of the accused, he chose not to lead DE and opportunity to lead the same was closed.
8. Final arguments were advanced at length by both the parties.
9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
10. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients required to prove offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act in this case are :
a. That the accused has defaced any public property by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material;
b. That the public property is situated in public view;
c. That writing or marking on public property in public view was not for indicating the name and address of the owner /occupier of the said property;
d. or that the defacement of public property had been done for benefit of the accused with his knowledge or consent.
11. Now let us examine if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present accused for offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act.
12. The material witness in the present case is complainant/IO Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA himself. Nowhere in the entire charge sheet or in his testimony, GUPTA Date:
2025.10.04 16:21:44 +0530 FIR No. 324/2023 State Vs. Ravi Yajurvedi Page No. 4/5 complainant/IO has alleged that any person had actually seen the accused putting up/affixing the board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and place. Nothing has been produced before court to state that the said board was installed/affixed by the accused himself or at his instance or for his benefit. Complainant/IO has not pointed out specifically anywhere in the entire charge sheet as to how and in what manner he conducted investigation to arrive at the conclusion that it was the accused who had installed/affixed board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and place. There is nothing available on record to suggest that any public person had informed complainant/IO of accused indulging in illegal activities as per Section 3 DPDP Act. Infact, no public person has been named as a witness in the present matter. Furthermore, in cross-examination, complainant/IO has admitted that he did not see accused or any other person acting at the behest of accused, installing/affixing the said board. Furthermore, the entire charge-sheet is silent if the said board was installed/affixed for the benefit of accused in any manner. The prosecution has not pleaded a case pointing out any benefit accrued to accused as per Section 3(2) DPDP Act.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is not even an iota of evidence against accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the board had been installed/affixed by accused or at behest of accused and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act is made out against accused. Accordingly, accused Ravi Yajurvedi is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 04.10.2025).
Digitally signed by NUPURNUPUR GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.04 16:21:58 +0530 (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 324/2023 State Vs. Ravi Yajurvedi Page No. 5/5