Delhi District Court
State vs . Praveen Kumar on 12 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. VIDHI GUPTA ANAND,
ACMM-01, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 54/2020
PS: Lajpat Nagar
U/S: 3 DPDP Act
12.09.2022
ID No. : 08/2022
CNR No. DLCT120000672022
Date of commission of offence : 25.01.2020
Date of institution of the case : 22.03.2021
Name of the complainant : HC Manoj Kumar
No. 2153/SE
PS Lajpat Nagar
Name of accused persons and : Praveen Kumar
addresses S/o Sh. P.N Deshmukh
R/o:- 80/2, Bhagwan
Nagar, Ashram, New
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 3 D.P.D.P. Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 12.09.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order the present case filed by the prosecution against MLA Praveen Kumar (hereinafter accused) u/s 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 2007 (DPDP Act) shall be decided and disposed off. Section 3 of the DPDP Act State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 1 of 18 provides for penalty for defacement of property. The meaning of defacement and law related to it shall be discussed in detail in the later pages of this judgment.
Facts put forward by the Prosecution
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.01.2020, at around 7.10 pm, when HC Manoj Kumar from PS Lajpat Nagar was patrolling in his area alongwith Ct. Lakhan and they reached near H.No. F-I/38, near Hari Mandir, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, they saw that on the Electricity Pole No. 381, two posters had been pasted. It is further mentioned in the chargesheet that HC Manoj Kumar took the photographs of the said posters pasted on the Electricity Pole and thereafter, took them off from the Electricity Pole and examined them.
2.2 Prosecution alleges that both the posters were round in shape whereby one was big having dimensions of 20 cm x 20 cm and the other was small having dimensions of 11.5 cm x 11.5 cm.
It is stated that the bigger poster had the photo of the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and had the logo of Aam Aadmi Party i.e. a Broom and it was written on the poster Achey Beetey Paanch Saal, Lagey Raho Kejriwal. Allegedly, the smaller poster had photos of the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and accused Praveen Kumar, having logo of Aam Aadmi Party i.e. a Broom and it was written on the poster Delhi Me Toh Kejriwal. 2.3 As per the prosecution case, both the removed posters were pasted on a white paper and were seized by the police and proceedings were initiated against the accused Praveen Kumar U/s 3 of DPDP Act for defacing the public property. Thereafter, State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 2 of 18 upon completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court on 22.03.2021.
Trial Proceedings
3. Cognizance was taken by the Court in this matter vide order dated 28.06.2022 and the accused was summoned in the Court to face trial for the offence u/s 3 of DPDP Act. Thereafter, upon his appearance in the Court on 11.07.2022, the accused was admitted to bail and copies U/s 207 Cr.PC were supplied him.
4. Notice of accusation Under Section 251 Cr.PC was served upon accused Under Section 3 of DPDP Act on 19.07.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Hence, the matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution Evidence.
5. Meanwhile, vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.PC, accused admitted to the registration of the FIR in this matter i.e. FIR No. 54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar. Accordingly, FIR was exhibited as Ex. A1 and the Certificate Under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act thereto was exhibited as Ex. A2. Consequently, the duty officer ASI Yogesh Kumar who recorded the FIR was dropped from the list of witnesses.
6. The remaining two witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ct. Lakhan Singh and PW2 ASI Manoj Kumar were duly examined in the court by Prosecution. No other witness has been cited or examined by Prosecution in this matter. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are not being discussed here in detail as they are similar and mostly in tandem with the facts of the prosecution case already mentioned above. During the testimonies of the said two State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 3 of 18 witnesses, following documents were relied upon and exhibited by the prosecution:-
S.No. Nature of documents Exhibits/Mark
1. Two posters Ex. P1 & P2
2. Seizure memo of posters Ex. PW1/A
3. Photographs of the electricity Ex. P3 & P4 pole and and the posters
4. Tehrir Ex. PW2/A
5. Site Plan Ex. PW2/B
6. Notice u/s 91 Cr.PC Ex. PW2/C
7. Election ID Card of accused Mark X
8. Electricity Bill of accused Mark X1
9. Reply of notice under section Mark Y 91 Cr.PC
7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein all the evidence brought by the prosecution was put to the accused. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and stated that this is a false case against him. He further stated that the witnesses who have deposed in this matter are interested witnesses and police has registered many false cases against the Members of the Aam Aadmi Party. Lastly, he stated that prosecution has failed to prove that the electricity pole was a Government Property.
When questioned as to whether he wanted to lead evidence in his evidence, accused answered in negative and accordingly, the matter was taken up for final arguments.
State v. Praveen Kumar
FIR No.54/2020
PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 4 of 18
Final Arguments
8. Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused addressed detailed final arguments in favour of their respective cases.
8.1 Ld. APP for the State pressed upon conviction of the accused stating that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the unfettered testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It was further argued by Ld. APP for the State that only because the witnesses are police witnesses and not public witnesses, their veracity cannot be doubted. He further stated that discrepancies, if any, in the testimonies of the police witnesses in this case are minor in nature and do not affect the nature of the case and rather prove that the testimonies are not tutored and can therefore be definitely relied upon. Ld. APP for the State argued that undoubtedly it has been proved on record that the accused pasted his posters on an electricity pole and thereby defaced the public property and therefore, he is liable to be punished.
Hence, Ld. APP for the State vehemently pressed upon conviction of the accused asserting that being a public servant, it was bounden duty of the accused/MLA to follow the laws and serve an example for the residents of his constituency, however, on the contrary, he has broken the law and therefore, he deserves to be awarded maximum punishment so that it serves as a deterrent for others. Thus, Ld. APP for the State concluded his arguments by praying for holding the Accused guilty.
8.2. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused strongly State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 5 of 18 pressed upon acquittal of the accused stating that the accused is not guilty and has been framed in this matter on account of political vendetta. Advancing his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that this is a false case and entire investigation of this case has been done by the IO while sitting in the PS itself. The main point of contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused was that even though it has been alleged by the prosecution that the posters were pasted by the accused on an electricity pole, prosecution could not prove that the said pole was a government property. Infact, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that prosecution could not even prove that the pole on which posters had been pasted was an electricity pole. Even if presumed to be an electricity pole, Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued that it has not been proved on record that it was in working condition. Further, he added that the photographs of the spot are not clear enough to point out towards the alleged commission of offence by the accused. Further, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that absence of the public witnesses from the witness box also proves the fact that accused has been intentionally framed in this matter.
Hence, Ld. Counsel for the accused pleaded for declaring the accused innocent and holding him not guilty.
8.3. In rebuttal to the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Accused, Ld. APP for the State argued that it is enough for the prosecution to prove the defacement of electricity pole by the Accused and it is immaterial as to whether the same was in working condition or not at the time of the incident. Further, Ld. APP for the State firmly put forward that the photographs Ex.P3 State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 6 of 18 and P4 are amply clear and speak themselves about the commission of defacement by the Accused and by no means can they be said to be faded or irrelevant to the case.
9. This Court has patiently heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. The chargesheet and the documents filed along with it as well as the evidence brought on record has been carefully perused.
Law on Defacement of Property
10. Before proceeding on to appreciation and evaluation of evidence, it is important to discuss and understand the law related to defacement of property.
10.1 From 28.09.1983 onwards, the region of NCT of Delhi was governed by the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. However, in the year 2009, The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, (DPDP Act) came into force containing specific provisions pertaining to offense of defacement of property which were akin to the West Bengal Act mentioned above.
10.2 Section 2(a) of the DPDP Act, defines defacement as follows:
"defacement" includes impairing or interfering with the appearance or beauty, damaging, disfiguring, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever and the word "deface" shall be construed accordingly;
Further, the Act specifically mentions that the offence of defacement is cognizable in nature. The Act provides for penalty for defacement under section 3(1) as follows:
State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 7 of 18 Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.
10.3 The meaning and constituents of Defacement have been discussed and elucidated upon in some leading judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
At the outset, it may be noted that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment titled as T.S. Marwah vs. State [2008 (4) JCC 2561] held that putting up of banners on the electricity pole does not attract the offence of defacement. It was held that:
A bare look on Section 3 (1) goes to show that the offence committed therein would be punishable only if defacement is done in respect of property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chowk, paint or any other material. There is nothing in the charge sheet filed against the petitioners to indicate that any property was defaced by writing or marking with ink, chowk, paint or any other material. The only allegation is that the banner was put on an electricity pole. Mere putting up the banner will not get cover by Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Prevention of defacement of Property Act, 1976.
However, later, the Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2007, was brought into execution vide judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the matter titled as M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India & ors. [W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 decided on 12.10.2007] wherein it has been specified that Defacement is of four types i.e. (i) Posters, (ii) Banners, (iii) Writing on the Walls and (iv) Illegal Hoardings/Flexes/Digital Banners. Hence, the scope of provisions of the DPDP Act have been widened.
State v. Praveen Kumar
FIR No.54/2020
PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 8 of 18
Further, in the judgments titled as Colonel Shiv Raj Kumar vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and others [CWP No.3367/2015 decided on 28.02.2018] as well as Indian Outdoor Advertising Association vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others [WP (C), 4238/2015 decided on 06.05.2015], directions were given for invoking the provisions of the DPDP Act against such banners/posters which cause defacement.
Thus, the law is settled on the aspect that for commission of offence of defacement, it need not only be a writing or marking with ink, chalk etc. and it can also be in the form of banners, posters, etc. In the case at hand, two posters of the Aam Aadmi Party have been allegedly pasted by the Accused on an electricity pole and hence, prima facie the case is covered within the ambit of DPDP Act.
10.4. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the Accused that it could not be proved by Prosecution that the alleged electricity pole on which posters have been pasted is a government/public property and thus, the case is not made out against the accused. Basic point of contention of Ld. Counsel for the Accused is that only defacement of Public property is an offence which could not be proved by the Prosecution.
Hence, another aspect which needs to be discussed here is the applicability of the DPDP Act i.e. whether it applies only to Government/Public Properties or Private properties as well.
It has already been mentioned above that Section 3(1) prescribes punishment for defacement. The provision begins with State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 9 of 18 the words whoever defaces any property in public view. It does not specify that the provision is applicable only if it is a public property; what it mentions is that the property should be in public view. Hence, from the bare reading of the provision itself it is apparent that both public property and private property are covered within the scope of this provision.
Moreover, in its noted judgment titled as Anil Bhatia & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.6711/2013 decided on 19.02.2015], Hon'ble High Court of Delhi discussed the issue of applicability of the DPDP Act on private properties in detail and held that:
19. The challenge by the petitioner to the Defacement Act, on the ground of the same being violative of Article 19(1)
(a) and the Defacement Act being not a law within the meaning of Article 19(2) and on the ground of no such restriction as imposed thereby being permissible on private properties, in our view, is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the GNCTD / Delhi Police of the Supreme Court in Novva Ads and in In Re: Noise Pollution case. It has clearly been held that advertisements / hoardings erected on private properties also are required to be licensed and regulated as they generally about on and are visible on public roads and public places and that hoardings erected on a private building may obstruct public roads, they may be dangerous to the building and to the public, they may be hazardous and dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic by distracting traffic, and their content may be obscene or objectionable and it is therefore not correct to say that hoardings on private properties are not required to be regulated by licensing provisions and there has to be a regulatory measure.
....
23. In the context of putting up of posters / billboards / hoardings if left unregulated, becoming an eyesore and a public nuisance, no distinction can be made between a public and a private property as the effect is the same. In fact, the Supreme Court in N.K. Bajpai Vs. Union of India (2012) 4 SCC 653 has held that imposition of restrictions is a concept inbuilt into the enjoyment of Fundamental State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 10 of 18 Rights, as no right can exist without a corresponding reasonable restriction placed on it. It was also held that with the development of law, Courts are expected to consider, in contradistinction to private and public interest, the institutional interest and expectations of the public at large from an institution and that balancing tests have to be applied by Courts in the process of interpretation or examining of the constitutional validity of a provision.
Hence, the argument of Ld. Counsel for the Accused that the case is not made on account of the fact that electricity pole is not a government property does not hold any merit.
10.5 From the above discussion, two ingredients of the offence of defacement u/s 3 of DPDP Act can be made out as follows:
a) Defacement of property by the Accused - It must be proved that the act of defacement has been committed by the Accused or at his instructions be it through writings/banners/posters or any other mode.
b) Property must be in public view - The property which is defaced, be it public or private, must be in public view i.e. visible to public at large.
10.6 Based on the above parameters, this court shall now proceed on to decide upon the culpability of the Accused in the present matter.
Appreciation of Evidence
11. At the outset, it may be noted that there are two cardinal principals of criminal jurisprudence which govern the decision in any criminal trial; one, that Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and two, the guilt of the Accused has to be proved by the Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.
State v. Praveen Kumar
FIR No.54/2020
PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 11 of 18
Meaning thereby that the burden to prove the guilt of the Accused is on the Prosecution and even if no defence is led by the Accused, he can still rebut the case of the Prosecution by creating preponderance of probabilities in his favour.
In the leading judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter titled as Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala [2019 (SCC online) SC 974], elucidating upon the onus of proof in a criminal trial, it was held that:
9. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Also, Narinder Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171], it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
12. In the present matter, in order to prove the commission of the offence of defacement by the Accused, the first and foremost ingredient which is to be proved by the Prosecution is that the State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 12 of 18 poster was pasted by the Accused himself or the same was posted at his behest and as per the settled principles of law discussed above, the same has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Mere insinuation that the poster was pasted by the Accused because the poster bears his photo does not prove the Prosecution case; an act on the part of the Accused completing the offence has to be proved.
13. Upon perusal of the record as well as testimonies of the witnesses, the first and foremost and the most crucial fact which surfaces is that not even a single eye-witness has been brought on record by the Prosecution who has seen the Accused either himself pasting the posters or instructing someone to do the same. Rather none of the witnesses examined on record have seen the incident at the time of it occurrence and they have merely conducted investigation after removal of the posters.
14. It has been stated in the testimony of PW1 that IO tried to make public persons join investigation but all of them refused and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. This renders the case of Prosecution doubtful. Names of such persons has not been noted anywhere and no notice has been served upon them by the IO. Further, the residents of house no.F1/38, in front of which the alleged electricity pole stands, have not been inquired with or made to join investigation despite the fact that they could have been most relevant witnesses to the case. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join investigation is of no avail to the Prosecution case.
The above stated observation of this court is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 13 of 18 titled as Hemraj vs State of Haryana [AIR 2005 SC 2110] wherein it was held that:
"the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case..."
Furthermore, in case titled as Roop Chand vs State of Haryana [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that:
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
Hence, the absence of eye-witnesses as well as other independent public witnesses does bring the case of Prosecution in a grey area and casts a shadow of doubt in it. More so, because the place of occurrence of the incident is a public place and there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses in the investigation.
State v. Praveen Kumar
FIR No.54/2020
PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 14 of 18
15. Yet another aspect which questions the Prosecution case is that no attempts have been made to recover a CCTV footage of the alleged incident from the spot which could have shed some light on the truth of the matter. If recovered, it could have been another crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution case.
16. A technical aspect which also needs to be dealt with here is that the digital evidence brought on record, i.e. photographs of the spot, have not been supported by a valid certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The essentials of the certificate u/s 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, have been enlisted in the leading judgment of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. [(2014) 10 S.C.C. 473] by Hon'ble Apex Court of India as follows:
Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. Interestingly, the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 15 of 18 Act attached to the photographs Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, does not mention any details of the device from which the photographs were taken. The IO has merely stated that the photos were taken from his mobile phone and have not been tampered with. This clearly does not fulfill the essentials of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the photo-studio or photographer from where the said photographs have been developed has not been made a witness in this case and therefore, an open end is left out on the aspect as to from where and when were the photographs printed.
17. Also, it is pertinent to note that no evidence has been brought on record by Prosecution to establish that the alleged posters were in fact got printed by the Accused. No investigation has been done in regard to the printing press from where such posters may have been printed. A notice has been issued to the IO u/s 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW2/C) asking the Accused to furnish details of the printing press as well as the person who printed the alleged posters. However, in his reply Mark Y, Accused has stated that the posters were posted without his knowledge and he has already submitted the bill as well as name and address of the printer to the election commission. Thereafter, no further inquiry was conducted by the IO to find out the details of the printer or as to who paid the bill of printing or at whose instructions were such posters circulated, etc. Hence, this turns out to be a lacuna in the Prosecution case which has broken the link between the Accused and the alleged posters.
18. Lastly, it is admitted by the IO that posters similar to the posters on record were also seen by him on other electricity State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 16 of 18 poles, however, he neither took any photographs of the said posters nor did he mention anything about them in the investigation documents pertaining to the present case. This aspect also indicates the lack of proper investigation by the IO in the present matter. No explanation, whatsoever, has been given by the IO as to why he did not mention about other such posters in his investigation report as the same could have been relevant for the purpose of this case.
Brief reasons for the decision
19. From the scrutiny of evidence discussed above, it is apparent that even though the act of defacement as such has been brought on record by the Prosecution, Prosecution has miserably failed to bring any evidence on record that it was committed by the Accused. Neither any ocular evidence nor any documentary evidence viz. Video footage, bills of printing, etc. has been brought on record which proves that the posters were in fact pasted by the Accused himself or at his instructions. Further, Prosecution could not even prove that the posters were got printed at the instance of the Accused.
20. Undoubtedly, the first essential of the offence of defacement i.e. commission of defacement by the Accused has not been proved by Prosecution. There are several lacunae in the Prosecution case which remained open till the end of trial. The only connection of the Accused with the posters which could be established by Prosecution was that the poster contains his photo which by no means is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Accused. As already mentioned above, the onus is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all State v. Praveen Kumar FIR No.54/2020 PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 17 of 18 reasonable doubts. On the basis of mere allegations, the Accused cannot be held liable for the alleged offence.
Conclusion
21. In view of the discussion held above as well the documents and evidence brought on record, Accused Parveen Kumar is held not guilty u/s 3 of DPDP Act and thereby acquitted for the same.
Announced in the open Court, (Vidhi Gupta Anand) th On 12 September, 2022. ACMM-01,RADC/New Delhi This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.
State v. Praveen Kumar
FIR No.54/2020
PS Lajpat Nagar page no. 18 of 18