Delhi District Court
State vs . Feroz Khan on 29 October, 2015
State Vs. Feroz Khan
FIR No:- 32/12
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF Dr. PANKAJ SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the Judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 32/12
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/s Feroz Khan
C/No. 48/2
U.ID No. 02405R0151042013
Date of Institution: 08.04.2013
Name of the Complainant ASI Ramjeet
PIS No.28850285
PS Domestic Airport
Name and address of accused Feroz Khan
S/o Sh. Aslam
R/o H. No. 13, Gail No. 6,
Sainik EnclaveII,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date for announcing the orders 29.10.2015
C/No. 48/02 Page No. 1 of 10
U.ID No. 02405R0151042013
State Vs. Feroz Khan
FIR No:- 32/12
PS Domestic Airport
JUDGMENT:
1. Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed on 18.09.2013 against accused Feroz Khan "that on 08.08.2012, at about 9.40PM at Car Zone Parking Terminal 1B Departure, Domestic Airport, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport, accused was trying to allure the passengers on the pretext that he will provide cheap travelling and purchasing and provide room in hotel on low fare and thereby harassing them and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Ordinance Act, 2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 04 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 12.05.2015. Thereafter, statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which accused pleaded his innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused.
3. PW1 HC Jawahar Lal deposed that on 08.08.2012 he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as HC and on that day he along with ASI Ramjeet after the investigation of case FIR no. 31/12 reached at Departure Hall 1 B of Domestic Airport where one person whose name later on inquiry was revealed as Firoz Khan was alluring the passengers C/No. 48/02 Page No. 2 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport on the pretext of providing cheap taxi service, shopping and cheap hotel room, due to which the passengers were getting annoyed. He further deposed that ASI Ramjeet requested the accused not to do so but he continued in his act and ASI Ramjeet with his help apprehended Firoz Khan and IO inquired from him. He furrther deposed that IO prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to him. He went to the PS and got the case registered through DO and he returned to the spot and handed over the original tehrir and computerized copy of FIR and thereafter the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that IO had also prepared the site plan at the spot. Thereafter, accused was released on bail. His statement was recorded by the IO. PW1 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
In cross examination he denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. PW2 HC Ramnand deposed that he was the Duty Officer at the relevant date and time who proved the present FIR Ex. PW2/A and his endorsement Ex. PW2/B on the rukka.
5. PW3 ASI Ramjeet Singh deposed that on 08.08.2012, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as ASI and on that day he along with HC Jawahar Lal were investigating the case FIR 31/12 PS Domestic Airport and were present at 1B departure general Car Parking area and at around 9.40pm one person was alluring the passengers coming out from the arrival hall of the airport and that person was inducing them C/No. 48/02 Page No. 3 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport to provide cheap taxi service, cheap hotels and shopping in Delhi, due to which there was hindrance to the passengers and they were getting annoyed. He further deposed that he requested him not to do so but he did not pay any heed to his request and thereafter accused was apprehended and on inquiry the name of the person was revealed as Feroz Khan. He deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A and sent HC Jawahar Lal to PS for registration of FIR, who went to the PS and got the present case registered through DO and after registration of the case he returned back to the spot with SI Harkesh Gaba as further investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that SI Harkesh Gaba prepared the site plan at his instance and he handed over the accused to SI Harkesh Gaba and further proceedings were carried out by SI Harkesh Gaba. His statement was recorded by SI Harkesh Gaba.
In cross examination he affirmed that there were many passengers/persons present at the spot. He further affirmed that he did not note down the name of any other passenger or public person present at tech spot. He further affirmed that there were other taxi drivers present at the spot at the relevant time.
6. PW4 SI Harkesh Gaba deposed that on 08.08.2012, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as SI and on that day, after registration of FIR by DO, further investigation was marked to him and he received computerised copy of FIR and original rukka and he along with HC Jawahar Lal reached at the spot, where ASI Ramjeet Singh along with accused Firoz Khan met them. He further deposed that he prepared the C/No. 48/02 Page No. 4 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport site plan at the instance of ASI Ramjeet Singh and site plan is Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he arrested accused Firoz Khan vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and accused was released on bail. He recorded the statements of witnesses and after the completion of investigation he prepared the challan and filed the same in the Court through SHO. PW4 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that accused was called in the PS and all proceedings were carried out in the PS. He further denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of ASI Ramjeet Singh.
Statement of accused and defence
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC were recorded on 27.06.2015. When all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused separately, distinctly and specifically to afford him an opportunity to explain the circumstances so put to him, but he did not offer a shred of evidence to prove his innocence except by saying that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Further accused did not lead any defence evidence in support of his claim of innocence.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
8. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the case of the prosecution should not be believed as IO C/No. 48/02 Page No. 5 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport 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 was alluring or soliciting the passengers. It is also submitted that both the accused did not annoy any passenger.
9. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submitted that there is enough evidence against the accused as he tried to allure the passenger and also worked in tandem to influence the passenger at the Airport, which caused annoyance to the passenger.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides. This case was registered against the accused for offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. The accused is a TSR driver and was soliciting and alluring the passengers outside the arrival hall and as per the prosecution case accused was alluring the passengers outside arrival hall by saying that they will ferry them in a cheap rate despite the passenger was not interested going with him. PW4 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version in entirety. These facts show C/No. 48/02 Page No. 6 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport that the accused was committing the offence of touting by indulging in illegal activity of enticing the passenger.
11. With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused 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.
12. 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.
13. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused 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 C/No. 48/02 Page No. 7 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport 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, the same does not become tainted by reason of absence of any public person as witness.
14. With respect to further argument raised on behalf of accused 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, the passengers 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.
15. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused C/No. 48/02 Page No. 8 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport that CC TV footage of the spot has not been filed by the prosecution showing the presence of accused 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.
16. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside 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.
C/No. 48/02 Page No. 9 of 10U.ID No. 02405R0151042013 State Vs. Feroz Khan FIR No:- 32/12 PS Domestic Airport Conclusion
17. 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 has 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 in defence and prosecution has firmly established its case against the accused beyond the shadows of doubt. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that accused committed the offence u/s 4 of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 and both the accused is accordingly convicted for the same.
Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Order on sentence will be pronounced after hearing the convict.
Announced in the Open Court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) today on this 29th day of October, 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi C/No. 48/02 Page No. 10 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0151042013