Delhi District Court
State ...........Prosecution vs . on 3 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE09, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 24/22
PS Domestic Airport
Under Section 4 (a) DPT MT Act
Cr. Case no. 8231/22
CNR no. DLSW020295732022
IN THE MATTER OF:
State ...........Prosecution
Vs.
Amit
S/o Sh. Natwar Lal
R/o F16, KH no.111/10/11/FMahavir Enclave,
PartIII, Uttam Nagar, Delhi .............Accused
1. Name of complainant : ASI Ramprasad
2. Name of accused : Amit
3. Offence complained of : Under Section 4(a), The
Delhi Prevention of Touting
and Malpractices against
Tourist Act, 2010.
4. Plea of accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 20.06.2022
6. Date of institution of case : 05.07.2022
7. Date of reserving judgment : 03.08.2022
8. Date of pronouncement : 03.08.2022
9. Final judgment : Convicted
State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.1/7
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
GARG Date:
2022.08.03
15:08:11 +0530
JUDGMENT:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused in respect of offence punishable U/s 4 (a) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2022, the complainant ASI Ram Prasad was on duty at Car Pick Up Zone, Terminal1, Domestic Airport, Delhi. At around 01:20 pm, he witnessed that one person parked his ECCO car bearing registration no.DL3CBJ7932 near Arrival Hall and was inducing the passengers coming out from Arrival Hall for accommodation and sight seeing on the pretext of providing them with taxi services and hotels at discounted rates in Delhi. He was instructed not to indulge in touting as the passengers were getting annoyed but he did not desist from his conduct. Thereafter, the complainant apprehended the driver and enquired about his name and address, who disclosed his name as Amit S/o Sh. Natwar Lal. Thereafter, he took him along with his taxi to the police station and the FIR was registered on the same date. Investigation was conducted by the IO wherein statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded, the accused was arrested and later on, was released on bail. The car of accused was also seized which was subsequently released to the rightful owner pursuant to the order of Court. Upon the culmination of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.
3. Cognizance of the offence under Section 4 (a) of the Act was taken against the accused and the copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in compliance with Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth 'Cr.P.C').
4. On the basis of material filed along with the chargesheet, notice of accusation u/S 4 (a) of the Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.2/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.08.03 15:08:21 +0530 not guilty and claimed trial. The accused admitted the genuineness of FIR registered on 20.06.2022 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A1 (colly) and DD entry no.27 dated 20.06.2022 as Ex.A2 under Section 294 of Cr. P. C. and consequently, PW DO/WASI Ratan Prabha was dropped from the list of witnesses.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. PW1 ASI Ramprasad Singh, the complainant, deposed in consonance with the prosecution case and tendered his complaint Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which tehrir was prepared by the IO and FIR was registered. The IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B, seized his ECCO car vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and prepared the site plan at his instance Ex.PW1/D. He correctly identified the photographs of the car as Ex. P1 and also correctly identified the accused present in court. In the crossexamination, he stated that he saw the accused indulging in touting activities at the spot. All other formal suggestions were refuted by the witness.
6. PW2 SI Ishwar Singh, the IO, testified as to the investigation conducted by him. On 20.06.2022, the complainant came to the police station alongwith the accused and his ECCO car. After recording the statement of complainant, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW2/A and got the FIR registered. Upon the receipt of rukka and copy of FIR, he proceeded to arrest the accused and seize his car which was later on released in compliance with court order after obtaining superdiginama Ex.PW2/B, panchnama Ex.PW2/C and valuation report of the said car. He was crossexamined wherein he denied all the formal suggestions.
7. PW3 ASI Mahender, MHC (M), brought the summoned record i.e. register no.19 and as per the entry no.237 of the said register Ex.PW3/A (OSR), State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.3/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.08.03 15:08:32 +0530 the IO had deposited the seized car in the Malkhana.
8. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with 313 Cr. P. C. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence were put to the accused. The accused denied all the allegations and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case as he was not indulging in touting and had merely gone at the spot to pick up a passenger. The accused further stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence and hence, the matter was taken up for final arguments.
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against accused beyond reasonable doubts as the testimony of all witnesses has remained unshaken and corroborated. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused has argued for his acquittal on the ground that he has been falsely implicated as there is no public witness to testify as to the veracity of case.
10. Arguments heard. Perused the record.
11. The provision of Section 4 (a) of the Act prescribes punishment for touting or commit any malpractice. According to Section 2 (f) of the Act, touting includes enticing, misguiding or coercing the tourists for accommodation, sight seeing etc. If anyone loiters around the airports, as in the present case, with the intention of offering unsolicited service to the tourists and exhibits such conduct so as to manifest such intention will be deemed to have committed the act of touting if he has otherwise no reasonable explanation for visiting the said place.
12. It is well settled that the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved in the State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.4/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.08.03 15:08:41 +0530 entirety merely because all the witnesses are official witnesses and no independent witness could be produced by the prosecution. Each case has to be determined on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances. Reliance in that regard is laid upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tahir Vs. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338, wherein it has been observed as hereinunder:
"6. Mr. D. D. Thakur, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that PW4 to PW7 on whose evidence the conviction has been recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any independent witness to corroborate them, it was not safe to rely upon their testimony to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We cannot agree. In our opinion no. infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no. rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
13. In the case at hand, both PW1 ASI Ramprasad Singh and PW2 SI Ishwar Singh have corroborated each other in material facts. Their testimonies cannot be doubted solely on the ground that no independent witness came forward to take part in the proceedings. The place of incident i.e. the Domestic Airport is such that the passengers or the tourists may be reasonably assumed to exhibit such kind of conduct as mostly they are in a hurry to catch their flight or head back towards their respective places after journey. There is also no bar on lodging the complaint by a police official as such. Moreover, the Court may draw the State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.5/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.08.03 15:08:51 +0530 presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the acts done by the police officials in discharge of their duties have been properly done in accordance with law, unless the said presumption is rebutted by the contesting party.
14. However, in the present case, there isn't sufficient material to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The witnesses have remained unshaken on material facts and nothing substantial could be elicited in the crossexamination of PW1 ASI Ramprasad Singh and PW2 SI Ishwar Singh . The accused has admitted that he was present at the spot and there is no explanation tendered by him as to why he would be falsely implicated. This fact goes on to only reinforce the case of prosecution.
15. Therefore, the court finds the evidence of prosecution witnesses completely reliable. Consequently, it is reflected from the prosecution evidence that the accused was found to be indulging in the act of touting the tourists coming out of the Arrival Hall on 20.06.2022 at 01:20 pm, as he was enticing them to provide cheap hotels and taxi services. The offending act of accused is clearly covered under Section 4 (a) of the Act.
16. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused. Resultantly, the accused Amit S/o Sh. Natwar Lal R/o F16, KH no.111/10/11/FMahavir Enclave, PartIII, Uttam Nagar, Delhi is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4(a) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010.
17. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.6/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date: 2022.08.03 15:09:01 +0530
18. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Pronounced in open court in the presence
of accused on 03.08.2022. Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
GARG Date:
2022.08.03
15:09:08 +0530
(Bharti Garg)
MM09/South West District
Dwarka Court/New Delhi/03.08.2022
It is certified that this judgment contains seven pages and each page has been Digitally signed signed by the undersigned. by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.08.03 15:09:17 +0530 (Bharti Garg) MM09/South West District Dwarka Court/New Delhi/03.08.2022 State Vs. Amit CNR no. DLSW020295732022 Page no.7/7