Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder & Another on 29 July, 2015
State Vs. Ravinder & another
FIR No.06/13
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. 06/13
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/s Ravinder & another
C/No. 26/02
U.ID No. 02405R0056602014
Date of Institution: 17.01.2014
Name of the Complainant SI Harkesh Gaba,
NoD125,
PS Domestic Airport.
Name and address of accused (1)Ravinder,
S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh,
R/o S313,
East Mehram Nagar,
Delhi.
(2)Ankit
S/o Sh. Mahender Kumar
R/o 11/8, East Mehram Nagar,
Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date for announcing the orders 29.07.2015
C/No. 26/02 Page No. 1 of 11
U.ID No. 02405R0056602014
State Vs. Ravinder & another
FIR No.06/13
PS Domestic Airport
JUDGMENT: The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1. Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed against accused Ravinder and Ankit on 06.03.2014 that on 18.01.2013, at 12.10PM, on road side near old Terminal 1B Domestic Airport, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport, both the accused persons in a white WagonR Car bearing number DL 3CAZ 5468 were pursuing the passengers and tourists coming from the side of arrival wing terminal1 and enticed one passenger on the pretext that they will provide cheap hotel and will charge from him less taxi care but the passenger was not interested, whereupon accused Ravinder picked up the luggage of the tourist and tried to put it into the WagonR Car on the signal of accused Ankit but the passenger was annoyed by their behaviour and snatched his luggage back from accused Ravinder and asked both of them to go away and thereby 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 3 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 24.04.2015. Thereafter, statement of accused persons U/S 313 CrPC were recorded in which accused persons pleaded their innocence. No defence evidence was led by accused persons.
C/No. 26/02 Page No. 2 of 11U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport
3. PW1 HC Harbeer Singh deposed that he was the Duty Officer at the relevant date and time who proved the FIR no. 6/13 as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka.
4. PW2 Ct. Sujan deposed that on 18.01.2013 he was posted at PS Domestic Airport at Constable. On that day, he was on duty at Terminal 1 B Departure from 08.00 AM to 07.00 PM and at around 12.00noon, SI Harkesh Gaba came in front of Departure Terminal 1 B on patrolling. At around 12.10PM, accused Ankit and Ravinder were alluring the passengers on the pretext of providing hotel on low fare and cheap taxi service in the Wagon R Car bearing no. DL 3CAZ 5468. He requested them not to do so but they did not pay any heed and he informed IO SI Harkesh Gaba regarding this and apprehended both the accused persons and tehrir was prepared and he was sent to the PS for registration of the case. He went to the PS and got the present case registered through DO and returned back to the spot and handed over the original tehrir and computerized copy of FIR to the IO. Both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW2/B. The wagon R car was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. IO had prepared site plan. Both the accused persons were taken to the PS and they were released on bail and the wagonR car was deposited in the malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. PW2 correctly identified both the accused persons.
In cross examination he stated that there are CC TV cameras C/No. 26/02 Page No. 3 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport installed. He stated that he does not know whether IO had taken the CC TV footage or not. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not alluring the passengers. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. PW3 SI Harkesh Gaba deposed that on 18.01.2013, he was on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport and when he reached near old 1B terminal, at about 11.55am, where Ct. Sujan was also present, a Wagon R No. DL 3CAZ 5468 white colour being driven by Ankit along with Ravinder, whose identities were learned after interrogation came there and got their Car haulted and then started pursuing the passengers coming from the arrival gate of terminal 1B. He tried to stop them but they kept on alluring the passengers on the pretext of providing a hotel with cheap rates and with less conveyance charges. After watching their activities, he gave a signal to Ct. Sujan to apprehend them. Ravinder picked up a luggage of a tourist but the tourist was annoyed and he was not interested in hiring the cab of the offenders as well as the hotel facilities. During the time, he was interrogating both these offenders the passenger took another cab and left the spot, due to which his identity could not be ascertained. He prepared a rukka for the said activity which is violative of Section 4 of DPTM Act and sent Ct. Sujan for registration of FIR and thereafter, the present FIR was registered and he was handed over the investigation by the SHO. Then he prepared the site plan of the occurrence Ex.PW3/A and same was prepared without scale. He C/No. 26/02 Page No. 4 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW2/B. The offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Then he released both the accused persons on bail since offence was bailable in nature. He concluded investigation and filed the charge sheet in the Court against both the accused persons. PW3 correctly identified both the accused persons.
In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he has have deliberately not recorded the name and details of the passenger who was being bullied by the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not obtained the CC TV footage of the terminal to show the activity of the accused persons.
Statement of accused and defence
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons U/S 313 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 person did not lead any defence evidence in support of their claim of innocence.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused C/No. 26/02 Page No. 5 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport 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 alluring or soliciting the passengers. It is also submitted that both the accused persons did not annoy any passenger.
8. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submitted that there is enough evidence against the accused persons as both tried to allure the passenger and also worked in tandem to influence the passenger at the Airport, which caused annoyance to the passenger.
9. 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 and also trying to keep the baggages of the C/No. 26/02 Page No. 6 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport passenger in their WagonR despite the passenger was not interested going with him. PW3 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version in entirety as he stated that accused Ravinder picked up the luggage of a passenger despite passenger was not interested in hiring their cab. Evidence also suggests that both the accused persons were constantly kept on pursuing the passenger to engage their services and when passenger did not show any interest accused Ankit gave signal to Ravinder through his eyes and whereupon Ravinder picked up the luggage of the passenger and tried to put in in their WagonR but the passenger was so annoyed with their behaviour snatched his luggage back from the Ravinder and asked them to go away, still both of them were pursuing him. These facts show that both the accused persons were together committing the offence of touting by indulging in illegal activity of enticing the passenger, so much so, when their tantrum failed they snatched the luggage of the passenger and forcibly put it in their WagonR which was retrieved by the passenger with difficulty.
10. With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused persons 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 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 is dismissed.
C/No. 26/02 Page No. 7 of 11U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport
11. 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.
12. 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 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.
C/No. 26/02 Page No. 8 of 11U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport
13. With respect to further argument raised on behalf of accused persons 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.
14. 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 witnesses is reliable and further the fact that no defence whatsoever has been led on behalf of accused persons.
15. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside C/No. 26/02 Page No. 9 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport 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
16. 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 persons have committed the offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. Nothing favourable could be brought by the counsel for the accused persons in their 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 accused C/No. 26/02 Page No. 10 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014 State Vs. Ravinder & another FIR No.06/13 PS Domestic Airport 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 both the convicted persons free of cost.
Order on sentence will be pronounced after hearing both the convicted persons.
Announced in the Open Court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) today on this 29th day of July, 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi C/No. 26/02 Page No. 11 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0056602014