Delhi District Court
State vs S. M. Sibte Hassan on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI SHARMA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
CNR No. DLSH020094232024
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.181/2024, PS
Jyoti Nagar [Cr. Case
No.4270/2024]
b Date of the commission of : 14.04.2024
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Rajvir Singh
d Name of accused person and : SM Sibte Hassan
his parentage and residence S/o SM Ajay Hassan
R/o C438, DDA Flats, Loni
Road, Jyoti Nagar, Delhi
e Offence complained of : 3 DPDP Act
f Plea of the accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 29.07.2025
i Order pronounced on : 30.07.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
1.Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case are that on 14.04.2024 at 6:38 PM at LIG Flat Road, Loni Road, near Jal board, Jyoti Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, you hung a board on an electric pole written with "Excellence Academy 1st to 8th: All Subjects (9th & 10th Social Science & Hindi) (11th & 12th Political Science by Shamshida Ma'am, PGT Political FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.1/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Date:
Sharma Sharma 2025.07.30 16:23:32 +0530 Science. Mob: 8076624876, 9318442513; C-438, Gate No. 5, LIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi-110093". for the purpose of advertisement due to which beauty of the abovesaid wall by defaced and thus, committed the offence u/s 3 DPDP Act. Hence, the present case.
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 25.06.2024 for the offence u/s 3 DPDP Act against accused SM Sibte Hassan whereupon Cognizance was taken and on the same day itself i.e. 25.06.2024, copy of chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 25.03.2025, charge was duly served upon the accused under section 3 DPDP Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Further, on 24.07.2025, vide his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., accused admitted the registration of FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar (Ex.C1) and documents exhibited by the witnesses i.e. seizure memo Ex. PW-1A, Tehrir Ex. PW-2/A, site plan Ex.
PW-2/B, interrogation report Ex. PW-2/C, notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-2/D and case property Ex. P-1.
4. Subsequently, prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, prosecution examined two witnesses i.e., Complainant Ct. Puneet and ASI Rajveer Singh.
Brief of the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses is given in the following paragraphs:
4.1. PW1 Ct. Puneet: He is the complainant in the present case.
He stated that on 14.04.2024, he alongwith ASI Rajvir were performing patrolling duty in the area of PS Jyoti Nagar and during FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.2/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:23:37 +0530 patrolling when they reached near Jal Board Road, near Jal Board Office, Jyoti Nagar, they saw that a poster of Excellence Academy 1st to 8th: All Subjects (9th & 10th Social Science & Hindi) ( 11th & 12th Political Science by Shamshida Ma'am, PGT Political Science. Mob: 8076624876, 9318442513; C-438, Gate No. 5, LIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi-110093, thereafter, he clicked photographs of the abovesaid poster with his personal mobile phone. He further stated that thereafter, he contacted with the accused SM Sibte Hassan and thereafter, he prepared tehrir, Ex.PW2/A and same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and returned back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka/tehrir and same was handed over to ASI Rajveer. He further stated that, thereafter, he alongwith ASI Rajveer reached at the PS where accused met them. Thereafter, accused was bound down through bound down memo already Ex. PW-2/E. He correctly identified the accused as well as case property Mark X in the court.
During his cross examination, PW-1 deposed that the poster was pasted on the private property but he did not investigate the house number of the said property and owner of the property. He admitted that he did not collect any evidence regarding ownership of Excellence Academy. He also admitted that he did not collect any documents regarding accused is the owner of Excellence Academy. He further deposed that he did not make any site plan. He further deposed that he did not investigate as to where the abovesaid poster was printed and he investigated the present matter only few hours. He admitted that he called the accused at PS Jyoti Nagar accordingly, accused came at PS. He denied the suggestions that he did not make any site plan as he had never visited at the spot. He also denied the suggestions that he did not FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.3/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Date:
Sharma 2025.07.30 16:23:42 +0530 investigate the matter fairly as he is the complainant and interested party in the present matter.
4.2 PW-2 ASI Rajveer: He stated that on 14.04.2024, he alongwith Ct. Puneet were performing patrolling duty in the area of PS Jyoti Nagar and during patrolling when they reached near Jal Board Road, near Jal Board Office, Jyoti Nagar they saw that a poster of Excellence Academy 1st to 8th: All Subjects (9th & 10th Social Science & Hindi) (11th & 12th Political Science by Shamshida Ma'am, PGT Political Science. Mob: 8076624876, 9318442513; C-438, Gate No. 5, LIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi-110093. Thereafter, Ct. Puneet clicked photographs of the abovesaid poster with his personal mobile phone, thereafter, Ct. Puneet contacted with the accused SM Sibte Hasan. He further stated that thereafter, Ct. Puneet prepared tehrir already Ex.PW2/A and the same was handed over to him for registration of FIR and accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and returned back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka/tehrir and same was handed over to him. He further stated that thereafter, he and Ct. Puneet reached at the PS where accused met them. He further stated that accused was bound down through bound down memo already Ex. PW-2/E. He correctly identified the accused as well as case property Mark X in the court.
During his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that he did not enquire the house number of property where poster was pasted. He deposed that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded at PS. He also admitted that the site plan was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestions that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that all the paper work was done while sitting at PS. He also denied the suggestions that he was not part of the investigation.
FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.4/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:23:47 +0530
5. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused SM Sibte Hassan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.07.2025 wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against him. He stated that he is innocent and the case property has been planted upon him and all the witnesses deposing against him are interested witnesses.
Despite opportunity, accused SM Sibte Hassan opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsel for the accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Final Arguments
6. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that accused has affixed the poster/hoarding on the private wall and rukka Ex.PW1/A was prepared by the IO and accordingly, the accused be convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act.
7. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as there is nothing on record to show that the impugned poster was affixed by the accused. There are no public witnesses to substantiate the commission of the offence. The photographs are not annexed with certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that accused be acquitted.
8. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and before proceedings further with deciding the present case, it is inevitable to discuss Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 which provides that: -
"Penalty for defacement of property. -
(1) Whoever defaces any property in FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.5/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Date:
Sharma Sharma 2025.07.30 16:23:52 +0530 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.
(2) Where any offence committed under sub-section (1) is for the benefit of some other person or a company or other body corporate or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), then, such other person and every president, chairman, director, partner, manager, secretary, agent or any other officer or persons concerned with the management thereof, as the case may be, shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence.
(3) The aforesaid penalties will be without prejudice to the provisions of section 425 and section 434 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the provisions of the relevant Municipal Acts."
9. Though in the present matter a poster mentioning "Excellence Academy 1st to 8th: All Subjects (9th & 10th Social Science & Hindi) (11th & 12th Political Science by Shamshida Ma'am, PGT Political Science. Mob: 8076624876, 9318442513; C-438, Gate No. 5, LIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi-110093" was found affixed on the wall, yet it has to be decided as to whether all the ingredients as mentioned in Section 3 DPDP Act have been fulfilled or not.
FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.6/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:23:57 +0530
10. In the present matter, complaint was made by Ct Puneet i.e. PW1 and he was the one who took the photograph and prepared rukka Ex. PW1/A, he is also IO in this case.
11. PW1 stated that he alongwith ASI Rajveer were on patrolling duty on the said date, but they could not produce/place on record the departure and arrival entry to prima facie show that they were on picket duty or visited the spot on the said day which is a crucial aspect left by the police. PW1 being present at the spot at the alleged time has to be proved beyond doubt and in the present case, it is a vital missing link in the prosecution case. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 leaves much to be desired in order to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. The prosecution has relied upon photograph of spot. The photograph was allegedly taken through an electronic device i.e. mobile phone. It is pertinent to note that certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has not been placed on record. Digital photograph taken from an electronic device is a piece of electronic evidence and electronic evidence can only be proved by way of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which has not been done in the present case for reasons best known to the police. Merely filing of photograph does not suffice and does not make it an admissible piece of evidence. It implies that the photograph of the spot remain unproved in the present case and cannot be relied upon in support of the prosecution case.
13. Further, no independent witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. PW has not explained in their testimony as to why the public witness was not joined in the investigation. It was within the reach of the IO to examine the independent witness FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.7/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:24:02 +0530 to prima facie satisfy that the poster was affixed on the spot. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the alleged poster was affixed by the accused or with his authority.
14. In the present matter, the allegation against the accused is that poster mentioning "Excellence Academy 1st to 8th: All Subjects (9th & 10th Social Science & Hindi) (11th & 12th Political Science by Shamshida Ma'am, PGT Political Science. Mob:
8076624876, 9318442513; C-438, Gate No. 5, LIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Delhi-110093" was found affixed on the wall. Now, it has to be seen whether installing of poster would amount to an offence u/s 3 of DPDP Act, or not. Prior to enactment of DPDP Act, West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 was prevalent in Delhi. Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is same to same as Section 3 of DPDP Act. For the sake of clarity, Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, is reproduced here as under: -
"Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paints or any other material, except for the purpose of indicating the memo and address of the owner or occupies of such property, shall be punishable with punishment prescribed."
20. In a case titled as "T.S. Marwah & Others Vs. State", 2008 (4) JCC 2561, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi: -
"... ... ... mere putting of the banner will not be covered by Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. It is true Section 2 FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.8/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:24:13 +0530 (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 embracing and it refers to only such type of defacements for the purpose of prosecution as is done by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material."
15. The question which is to be decided in the present case is whether the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment and whether the aforementioned judgment also applicable to offence u/s 3 of DPDP Act. Provisions of Section 3 of DPDP Act and Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act are similar to each other and, therefore, the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of T.S. Marwah (supra) would also be applicable to the provision of Section 3 of DPDP Act. In these circumstances, affixing of a poster mentioning "Apex Acadmey of Excellence Computer Courses" would not amount to an offence u/s 3 of DPDP Act.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.9/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:24:17 +0530 the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
Conclusion
18. In the present case, in view of the above stated discussions, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused to be acquitted in the present case. Therefore, accused namely SM Sibte Hassan is hereby acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 3 of DPDP Act.
Announced in the Open Court (Swati Sharma) on 30.07.2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdara District, Karkardooma 30.07.2025 [This judgment contains 10 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No.181/2024 PS Jyoti Nagar titled as State vs. SM Sibte Hassan Page No.10/ 10 Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.07.30 16:24:22 +0530