Delhi District Court
State vs . Narayan Das And Another on 27 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-1, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO. : 317/19
U/S : 4 (c) The Delhi Prevention of Touting & Malpractices
against Tourists Act 2010
PS : IGI Airport
State Vs. Narayan Das and another
a. ID No. of the case 9188/19
b. Date of commission of offence 14.07.2019
c. Date of institution of the case 26.09.2019
d. Name of the complainant Ct. Vikash, No.309/A, PIS No.
28100658, PS:IGI Airport, T-3 New
Delhi.
e. Name & Address of the 1. Narayan Das S/o Sh. Maninder Das
accused persons R/o H. No. J-1/133 J J Cly Wazir Pur
Delhi-52.
2. Basant Kumar Nishad S/o Sh.R.D.
Nishad R/o. H. No. Ex-31 Block-B-117
Trilok Puri,Delhi-91.
f. Offence complained off Under Section 4-C DPTMT Act
g. Charge framed Under Section 4-C DPTMT Act
h. Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
i. Arguments heard on 27.01.2020
j. Final order Convicted for the commission of
offence punishable u/s 4-C DPTMT Act
k Date of Judgment 27.01.2020
1.The case adumbrated by the prosecution is that on 14.07.2019, ASI Sunil Gaur was present in the Police Station. Ct. Vikas who was posted in PS IGI Airport as constable was patrolling duty at Departure Wing, T-3, IGI Airport, near Gate No.3 and there he saw that the accused persons were alluring the passengers/foreigners FIR No.317/19 State Vs. Narayan Das & another Page No. 1 of 5 and asking them if they wanted cheap conveyance and also cheap hotel. The passengers were getting annoyed. He apprehended the accused persons and produced before Station House Officer who called the IO ASI Sunil Gaur and handed over the further investigation to him. IO ASI Sunil Gaur after completion of formalities, the present FIR was registered, accused persons were arrested and the challan was filed by IO ASI Sunil Gaur.
2. After appearance of accused persons, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to the accused persons and they were served with notice for offence U/s 4(C) of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices Against Tourists Act 2010 (DPTMT) U/s 251 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and specified their defence that accusations against them were false.
3. During prosecution evidence, ASI Sunil Gaur and Ct. Vikas were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. They narrated the sequence of events. They were also cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons. Thereafter, prosecution evidence stood closed and accused persons were examined U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein they declined all the incriminating circumstances against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated as they were not present at the spot. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was proceeded with final arguments.
4. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and fastidiously gone through the records of the case.
5. Before returning my finding, let me reproduce relevant sections of DPTMT Act.
Section 6 of DPTMT Act:- (1) if an offence of malpractice or touting takes place in the presence of a police officer, not below the rank of FIR No.317/19 State Vs. Narayan Das & another Page No. 2 of 5 an assistant sub-inspector of police,such police officer may arrest the person and record his observations about such conduct of the individual that constituted the offence of touting. (2) Any police officer having reason to suspect a person of indulging in the act of touting or malpractice against a tourist may search such person and may require an account in relation to any articles found in his possession and may seize such article if found suspicious and of such nature which could be used for commission of touting or malpractice against tourists.
(3) A police officer not below the rank of an assistant sub-inspector of Police, may enter a public or private establishment which he has reason to believe was or is being used as a place for commission of touting or malpractice against tourists and inspect the same. Section 9 Investigation, etc of offences:- Sub section-2 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank of assistant sub-inspector shall investigate an offence under this Act.
6. It is plain from the abovementioned provisions of DPTMT Act that police officials not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector has powers to arrest the accused and also investigate the case. In compliance of this mandatory provision, investigation into the present case is shown to be carried out by SI Ajay Kumar.
7. It is limpid that the prosecution has examined two police witness only. Thus, it is to be seen whether reliance can be placed upon their testimonies. The law in this regard is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmod Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC344 as under:-
".....The witnesses from the department FIR No.317/19 State Vs. Narayan Das & another Page No. 3 of 5 of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U. P. Vs. Anil Singh, State, Govt. of NCT of Deli Vs. Sunil and Another and Ramjee Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar, has laid down recently in Kasmiri Lal Vs. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the Court cannot definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the Court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the Court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weights over the quantity of evidence".
FIR No.317/19 State Vs. Narayan Das & another Page No. 4 of 5
8. PW-2 Ct. Vikas is the material witness of the prosecution who has deposed specifically to the effect that the accused persons were making attempts to commit acts of touting by forcing the foreign passengers to hire their taxi, and were making foreign passengers feel uncomfortable. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons regarding his deposition but nothing adverse has come on record as PW-2 stood entrenched in his stand. No evidence has been led by the accused persons to contradict the charges levelled against them.
9. Having regard to above discussion, the accused persons namely Narayan Das and Basant Kumar Nishad are held "guilty" for offence punishable U/s 4(C) of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices Against Tourists Act 2010 (DPTMT).
Announced in the open
Court on 27.01.2020 (NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA)
ACMM-01/New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
Certified that this judgment contains five pages and each page is signed by me.
(NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA) ACMM-01/New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi FIR No.317/19 State Vs. Narayan Das & another Page No. 5 of 5