Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun Singh & Another on 11 September, 2015
State Vs. Arun Singh & another
FIR No 50/14
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the Judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 50/14
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/s Arun Singh & another
C/No. 62/02
U.ID No. 02405R0233752014
Date of Institution: 07.10.2014
Name of the Complainant SI R.L. Meena
No. D1322,
Domestic Airport, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused (1)Arun Singh
S/o Sh. Gajji Singh
R/o H. No. A7/1,
Second Floor, Sewak Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(2)Puran Chand
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o H. No. WZ927/D,
Gali No. 14, A/3, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date on which reserved for orders 11.09.2015
C/No. 62/02 Page No. 1 of 13
U.ID No. 02405R0233752014
State Vs. Arun Singh & another
FIR No 50/14
PS Domestic Airport
Date for announcing the orders 11.09.2015
JUDGMENT: The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1. Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed against accused persons on 31.01.2015 "that on 28.06.2014, at 12.30PM near Car Parking, Terminal 1B, Domestic Airport, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport, both the accused persons were alluring the passengers coming from the arrival hall in front of Terminal 1B parking, on the pretext that you will provide cheap hotel and taxi service and shopping around Delhi and thereby both the accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Ordinance Act, 2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 04 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 08.07.2015. Thereafter, statement of both the accused persons U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which they both pleaded their innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons.
3. PW1 HC Jawahar Lal deposed that he was the Duty Officer at the relevant date and time who proved the FIR no.50/14 as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka.
C/No. 62/02 Page No. 2 of 13U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport
4. PW2 Constable Ramesh Kumar Yadav deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was on duty at Domestic Airport from 7.00 AM to 8.00 PM and at around 1212.30 PM he saw that the swift dzire car bearing no. 7613 belonging to the accused persons Puran Chand and Arun Singh was present near a car parking terminal 1B and both of them were alluring the passengers coming from the arrival hall in their car on the pretext of providing them cheap taxi service and hotels on discounted rates due to which passengers were getting annoyed. He requested them not to do so but they did not pay any heed to his request and continued in their conduct. He informed Ct. Dushyant from Delhi Police who then informed at PS Domestic Airport and from the P.S. SI, R.L Meena came at the spot. R.L Meena got registered the case against Puran Chand and Arun Singh and also arrested them vide arrest memos Ex. PW2/A & PW2/B. They were personally searched and SI R.L Meena prepared the personal search memo Ex. PW2/C & PW2/D. Swift Car was also seized along with the key by SI R.L Meena and prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW2/E. In cross examination, he stated that he did not note down the names and address of the passengers who were being allured by the accused persons. He stated that no written complaint was given by any of the passengers who were getting annoyed by the act of accused persons. He affirmed that there were many persons present in the car parking at the spot and drivers of other vehicles were also present there. He stated that he did not give any written complaint to police.
C/No. 62/02 Page No. 3 of 13U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport He stated that police officials had arrived at the spot within 24 minutes. He stated that those police officials remained there though out the day. He stated that no statement of any public person was recorded by the police in my presence. He stated that he had signed some documents but he does not know the numbers and description of those documents. He stated that his statement was recorded by the IO and he signed the same after going through. He affirmed that the said statement is not on record. He stated that there is no CCTV cameras installed near Car Parking. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not alluring the passengers or that no such incident ever took place or that he was made witness by the police as he was on duty there.
5. PW3 Constable Dushyant Kumar deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport. On that day he was on patrolling duty with SI R.L Meena. During patrolling when they reached near Car parking terminal 1B at 12.30 p.m they saw two person were alluring the passengers coming from the arrival hall on the pretext of providing them cheap taxi service and hotel on discounted rates. They were pointing towards one swift dezire Car bearing no. DL9CAG7613 and were asking the passengers to sit in the said car. Passengers were getting annoyed due to that conduct. SI R.L Meena on seeing this directed them not to do so but they did not desist from there conduct. In the mean time Ct. Ramesh Kumar from CISF also informed SI R.L Meena that he had also requested both the persons not to obstruct passengers but they had not paid any heed to his requests. Thereafter, C/No. 62/02 Page No. 4 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport both of them were apprehended and on inquiry names of those persons were revealed as Puran Chand and Arun Singh. Thereafter, SI R.L Meena prepared Tehrir and sent him to PS for registration of case. He went to PS and got the present case registered through DO and thereafter he returned back to the spot and handed over original tehrir and computerized copy of FIR to SI R.L Meena who carried further proceedings. Puran Chand and Arun Singh were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW2/A & PW2/B and they were personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/C & PW2/D. Car along with key was seized through seizure memo Ex. PW2/E. Photocopy of the RC and insurance of the Car were seized through seizure memo Ex. PW3/A Both accused persons were released on bail. Car was deposited in the malkhana. His statement was recorded by IO.
In cross examination, he stated that he had left the PS for patrolling after making the departure entry but he does not remember the DD entry now. He denied the suggestion that he does not remember the DD entry as he never left the PS for patrolling on that day. He stated that Ct. Ramesh Kumar from CISF did not give any written complaint against both accused persons to SI R.L Meena. He affirmed that no passengers who were being allured by the accused persons gave any written complaint. He stated that names and addresses of those passengers who were being allured by the accused persons were not noted down by them. He stated that they had requested some passengers to give written complaint against both the accused persons but none agreed by citing there reasons. He denied C/No. 62/02 Page No. 5 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport the suggestion that both accused persons were called at the PS and all the proceedings were carried out in the PS as both the accused persons were known to them. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not alluring the passengers out side terminal 1B of the Airport.
6. PW4 SI R.L. Meena deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as SI. On that day he along with Ct. Dushyant were on patrolling duty. During patrolling when they reached near Car parking terminal 1B at 12.30 p.m they saw two persons were alluring the passengers coming from the arrival hall on the pretext of providing them cheap taxi service and hotel on discounted rates. They were pointing towards one swift dezire Car bearing no. DL9CAG7613 and were asking the passengers to sit in the said car. Passengers were getting annoyed due to that conduct. He on seeing this directed them not to do so but they did not desist from their conduct. In the mean time Ct. Ramesh Kumar from CISF also informed that he had also requested both the persons not to obstruct passengers but they had not paid any heed to his requests. Thereafter, both of them were apprehended and on inquiry names of those persons were revealed as Puran Chand and Arun Singh. Thereafter, he prepared Tehrir Ex.PW4/A and sent Ct. Dushyant to PS for registration of case. Ct. Dushyant went to PS and got the present case registered through DO and thereafter returned back to the spot and handed over original C/No. 62/02 Page No. 6 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport tehrir and computerized copy of FIR to him. Puran Chand and Arun Singh were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW2/A & PW2/B and they were personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/C &PW2/D. Car along with key was seized through seizure memo Ex. PW2/E. Photocopy of the RC and insurance of the Car were seized through seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B. Both accused persons were released on bail. Car was deposited in the malkhana. He recorded the statements of witnesses. He correctly identified both the accused persons.
In cross examination, he stated that he had left the PS for patrolling after making the departure entry but he does not remember the DD entry now. He denied the suggestion that he does not remember the DD entry as he never left the PS for patrolling on that day. He stated that Ct. Ramesh Kumar from CISF did not give any written complaint against both accused persons to him. He affirmed that no passengers who were being allured by the accused persons gave any written complaint. He stated that names and addresses of those passengers who were being allured by the accused persons were not noted down by them. He stated that he had requested some passengers to give written complaint against both the accused persons but none agreed by citing there reasons. He denied the suggestion that both accused persons were called at the PS and all the proceedings were carried out in the PS as both the accused persons were known to them. He denied the suggestion that both the accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case or that they were not alluring the C/No. 62/02 Page No. 7 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport passengers out side terminal 1B of the Airport.
Statement of accused and defence
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons u/s313 CrPC were recorded. When all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons separately, distinctly and specifically to afford them opportunity to explain the circumstances so put to them, but they did not offer a shred of evidence to prove their innocence except by saying that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Further accused persons did not lead any defence evidence in support of their claim of innocence.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
8. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has submitted that the case of the prosecution should not be believed as IO of the case is complainant himself. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that it is not in accordance with principles of natural justice that a complainant himself investigate the case and files the charge sheet against a person. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that despite airport being a busy place, no public persons have been made witnesses to the proceedings carried out by the IO. It is further argued that despite CC TV installed on all the places in the airport, no footage has been filed by way of evidence showing the accused persons were C/No. 62/02 Page No. 8 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport alluring or soliciting the passengers. It is also submitted that both the accused did not annoy any passenger.
9. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submitted that there is enough evidence against both the accused persons as they tried to allure the passenger and also worked in tandem to influence the passenger at the Airport, which caused annoyance to the passenger.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides. This case was registered against both the accused persons for offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. The accused persons are TSR drivers and were soliciting and alluring the passengers outside the arrival hall and as per the prosecution case accused persons were alluring the passengers outside arrival hall by saying that they will ferry them in a cheap rate despite the passengers were not interested going with them. PW4 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version in entirety. These facts show that the accused persons were committing the offence of touting by indulging in illegal activity of enticing the passengers.
11. With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused that IO and the complainant is same person, to this argument it is observed that when a crime is informed by any person who happens to be a police official of the same jurisdiction, he becomes complainant of the C/No. 62/02 Page No. 9 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport case and same does not preclude him from becoming the IO if the SHO hands over him the investigation of the case and accordingly, the contention put forth on behalf of accused persons is dismissed.
12. Also, the complainant in these cases are generally policemen as they have the duty to prevent touting at these places. Nowhere the law prevents a policeman to become complainant or competent witness. A policeman is as competent a witness as any other person and where the testimony of policeman is reliable and trustworthy and plausible explanation is given by the police for not making any public person as witness, the testimony can be relied upon.
13. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused persons that despite arrival hall being crowded place, IO has not made any public person as witness, to this argument, it is observed that the testimony of police officials can be relied upon unless it suffers from doubts and failure to join any public person do not go to dismantle the case of prosecution entirely if the plausible explanation given by the police for not doing so, which in this case is given by the IO and accordingly, the argument is dismissed. Also, it is not very uncommon that Public persons are generally reluctant to join as a witness and appear before the court as a witness. In State of U.P. Vs Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686, it is observed that "it is also not proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable". Even otherwise if the C/No. 62/02 Page No. 10 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport evidence on record is sufficient to nail the accused persons, the same does not become tainted by reason of absence of any public person as witness.
14. With respect to further argument raised on behalf of accused that the passenger which was allegedly allured/annoyed by them was not examined on behalf of prosecution, to this argument it is observed that the testimony of IO reveals that while he was busy in apprehending the accused persons, the passenger took some other cab and left the spot. It is quite likely that passengers are in hurry to reach their destination once they come out of their journey and they tend to ignore the disturbance created by unscrupulous persons who annoy them by forcing them to take their services and in these circumstances the passengers try to leave the place at the earliest to avoid further inconvenience. Even some time they were on the spot but they prefer not to become witness to legal proceedings as they fear that it may become onerous and expensive venture to them in future.
15. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused persons that CC TV footage of the spot has not been filed by the prosecution showing the presence of accused persons at the spot and indulging into touting, to this argument it is observed that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is reliable, firm and unshaken by cross examination and accordingly, the same is relied upon by the Court and absence of CC TV footage is of no use when the testimony of C/No. 62/02 Page No. 11 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport witnesses is reliable and further the fact that no defence whatsoever has been led on behalf of both the accused persons.
16. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several unscrupulous TSR and cab driver allure passengers of cheap hotel, low fare and other benefits and in most of the cases they misbehave with the passengers who do not fall prey to their allurements and generally passengers avoid police action against them to avoid their future trouble. It is also noteworthy that absence of adequate police officials outside arrival hall give encouragement to these unlawful activities by these law breakers. Also, these people annoy the passengers in front of their families and friends thereby reducing the joy of their journey and exposing them to all sort of dangers. These illegal activities also show lack of effective policing. In these circumstances, the role of police assumes significance and stern and preventive action is required for stopping these illegal activities going around sophisticated place like Airport where people from all over the world come. Such incident of touting also diminishes the reputation and also brings bad name to our country in the world.
Conclusion
17. In the light of the aforesaid facts and considering the handicaps of the policeman in these cases and the evidence on record, this court is convinced that accused has committed the offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010.
C/No. 62/02 Page No. 12 of 13U.ID No. 02405R0233752014 State Vs. Arun Singh & another FIR No 50/14 PS Domestic Airport Nothing favourable could be brought by the counsel for the accused persons in defence and prosecution has firmly established its case against the accused persons beyond the shadows of doubt. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that both the accused persons committed the offence u/s 4 of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 and both the accused persons are accordingly convicted for the same.
Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Order on sentence will be pronounced after hearing the convict.
Announced in the Open Court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) th today on this 11 day of September, 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi C/No. 62/02 Page No. 13 of 13 U.ID No. 02405R0233752014