Delhi District Court
State vs Amrish Tanwar on 17 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MRIDUL GUPTA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
Amrish Tanwar
S/o Sh. Amrish Tanwar,
R/o CB-91, Naraina Ring Road,
Naraina, New Delhi
DLND020332502024
Cr. Case No.4755/2024
FIR No.130/2024
P.S Naraina
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 4755/2024 2. Date of institution 30.05.2024 3. Name of the complainant HC Ashok Kumar 4. Date of commission of offence 17.04.2024 FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-1 of 10 5. Name of accused Amrish Tanwar 6. Offence complained of 3 DPDP Act 7. Plea of accused Accused pleaded not guilty 8. Date of reserving the judgment 04.02.2026 9. Final order Aquitted 10 Date of such judgment 17.02.2026 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. That on 17.04.2024 at 07:30 pm, under Naraina Flyover near Pillar no.12 within the jurisdiction of PS Naraina, one board was affixed on electric pole having mention of words " Admission Open Apply Now Kanwas Kids Discovering Open Minds Pre School Pay Group L.K.G, U.K. G and Classes I to V " which was affixed by the accused and thereby the accused was chargesheeted under section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'DPDP Act') for defacement of the public property and commission of an offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of the chargesheet and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to accused and he was served with notice u/sec 3 of DPDP Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In proceedings under Section 294 Cr.P.C/330 FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-2 of 10 BNSS, the accused admitted the FIR No. 130/2024, PS Naraina as well as the endorsement on the original rukka and accordingly the Duty Officer of concerned PS was dropped as a witness.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined only 01 witness i.e. HC Naveen.
3.1 PW-1 HC Bijender deposed that on 17.04.2024, he was posted as HC at PS Naraina. He was on patrolling duty. During the course of patrolling duty, he found a poster relating to admissions in Kanvas Kids Discovering Open Mind Pre-School. It was an advertisement without authorization and it was affixed on an electrical pole which was a public property. Since it was a violation of Section 3 of DPDP Act. HC Ashok Kumar prepared a complaint and went to the police station for the purpose of registration of an FIR. The complaint statement in this regard was prepared by HC Ashok Kumar who was also with him on patrolling duty and he had deputed him for the purpose of registration of FIR which was Ex.PW1/A. After the registration of FIR, IO commenced his investigation and he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter the IO prepared the seizure memo after seizing the banner/poster Ex.PW1/C. The MHCM deposited the case property in the malkhana of PS. His statement was recorded by the IO at the PS. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination he admitted that the he did not FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-3 of 10 get a call or any written complaint from anyone regarding the alleged incident of defacement. During the regular patrolling, he came to know about the poster. He was there with HC Ashok Kumar. He had not seen the accused personally affixing any poster or deputing anybody who may have affixed on his instruction. He had taken the photograph of the poster from his own mobile phone. The said mobile was totally used for personal use and the same was not provided by the police administration. The mobile was not used by anyone else except him. He admitted that he had not provided the meta data of the photograph i.e. on the file. He denied the suggestion that someone else had affixed the poster instead of the said accused.
3.2 PW-2 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 17.04.2024, he was on patrolling duty and he was posted at Naraina police Station. During his patrolling duty, he reached Naraina Ring road where he found a poster relating to admissions in Kanvas Kidz Discovering Open Mind Pre-School. It was an advertisement without authorization and it was affixed on an electrical pole which was a public property. Since it was a violation of Section 3 of DPDP Act, he prepared a complaint and went to the police station for the purpose of registration of an FIR. The complaint statement in this regard was prepared by him and HC Bijender was also with him on patrolling duty and he had deputed HC Bijender for the purpose of registeration of FIR Ex.PW1/A. After the FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-4 of 10 registeration of FIR, he commenced his investigation and he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/B. He prepared the seizure memo after seizing the banner/poster Ex.PW1/C. He gave notice to the accused Ex.PW2/A. He duly interrogated him and prepared an interrogation report Ex.PW2/B. He collected the documents related to Kanvaz Kids Pre School which is Ex.PW2/C (colly.). The photograph of the poster affixed on the public property duly identified by the witness as Ex.P1. He prepared the chargesheet and duly filed the same before this Court. He correctly identified the accused in Court. He correctly identified the case property Ex.MO-1. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not get a call or any written complaint from anyone regarding the incident of defacement. During the regular patrolling, he came to know about the poster. He was there with HC Bijender Kumar. He had not seen the accused personally affixing any poster or deputing anybody who may have affixed on his instruction. HC Bijender Kumar had taken the photograph of the poster from his own mobile phone. He admitted that Section 65 B Certificate is not attached with the photograph in the judicial file. The print of the photograph of the poster was taken from the nearby cyber cafe. He had not provided the meta data of the photograph i.e. on the file. He denied that someone else had affixed the poster instead of the said accused.
FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-5 of 10
4. Prosecution evidence was directed to be closed vide order dated 08.01.2026.
5. Statement of the accused U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C. was separately recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him for seeking his explanation. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file in light of the submissions advanced by the respective counsels.
Brief reasons for final decision
7. The Court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the PWs recorded before the Court. There are only two witnesses who have been examined in the present case and both of them are police official witnesses. No explanation has been given on behalf of prosecution for not joining even a single independent witness regarding recovery and seizure of the defacing material/poster/board. When the case of prosecution is that the poster/board was found affixed on electric pole under Naraina Flyover, they should have examined at least one public person especially since the recovery was made from a public place at a time FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-6 of 10 when the place is generally frequented by people. Even the complainant is a police official. No local resident or the inhabitant of the locality had joined the investigation. These grounds prove to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
8. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has relied upon photographs of the spot showing the alleged posters/advertisement to be affixed on the pole constituting the alleged offence. However, the same have been alleged to be taken through an electronic device i.e. mobile phone of PW-1. The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been placed on record, which makes the said piece of electronic evidence inadmissible in law. It is also brought out in the cross examination of PWs that mata data of the photographs is not on record, neither was the mobile phone from which the photograph was taken, in a sealed condition, thus compromising the integrity of the said photograph i.e. electronic evidence. In view of the above, the photograph of the spot remained unproved and cannot be relied upon in support of the case of the prosecution.
9. The case of the prosecution suffers from the aforesaid lacunae/omissions in the investigation. Furthermore, for establishment of the offence u/s 3 of DPDP Act, the relevant law and its ingredients and application as per the settled judicial precedents FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-7 of 10 have to be borne in mind.
10. Furthermore, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as T.S. Marwah & Ors Vs. State 2008(4) JCC 2561 has laid down as below:-
"A bare look at Section 3 (1) goes to show that the offence committed therein would be punishable only if the defacement is done in respect of property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. There is nothing in the charge sheet filed against the petitioner to indicate that any property was defaced by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. The only allegation is that the banner was put on an electric pole. Mere putting of the banner will not get covered by section 3 (1) of The West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. It is true that Sec. 2(AA) defines defacement which includes impairing or interfering with the appearance, beauty, damaging, distinguishing, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever, but Section 3 (1) is not all embrasing and it refers only such type of defacement for the purpose of prosecution as is done by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material."
11. Present charge sheet has been filed u/sec 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007. Before Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 was prevalent in territory of state of Delhi. Provisions of Section 3 of both the above-mentioned Acts are almost same except one change in definition of Word Writing in FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-8 of 10 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act. Section 2 (d) of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act defines writing as including printing, painting, decoration, lettering, ornamentation etc., produced by stencil. In West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, "writing" was defined as including decoration, lettering, ornamentation, etc., produced by stencil.
12. The sole difference in definition of writing in both the Acts is inclusiveness of printing in Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
13. Except addition of printing in definition of writing, provisions of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act for Section 3 of both the Acts are also same. So ratio in judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in T. S. Marwah's case (Supra) still holds good for present case as facts of present case are similar to those in T. S. Marwah's case and putting up of banner/poster will not be covered u/sec 3 (1) of DPDP Act.
14. In view of the above facts, circumstances and position of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and to bring his acts and conduct within the provision of law constituting the offence or within legal ambit which FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-9 of 10 would warrant his conviction and punishment in the present case. Hence the case u/sec 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is not made out against accused. I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled to be acquitted for offence u/sec 3 of DPDP Act.
15. Accordingly, the accused namely Amrish Tanwar S/o Sh. Bal Kishan Tanwar is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 3 DPDP Act. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Surety Bond stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on proper receipt and identification. Accused is directed to furnish necessary bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
16. Case property, if any, be returned as per rules.
17. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliances.
MRIDUL Digitally signed by MRIDUL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.17 17:43:59 +0530 (Mridul Gupta) CJM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Announced in the open Court On 17th February, 2026 FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-10 of 10