Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Sana Ullah on 14 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 3902017
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Paschim Vihar
State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah
Case ID No. 802018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 802018
2. Date of commission of offence 11.11.2017
3. Name of complainant ASI Ballu Ram
4. Name of accused Mohd. Sana Ullah
S/o. Sh. Abdul Sattar
R/o; RZB335, Nihal Vihar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 3 DPDP Act
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 14.11.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 11.11.2017, at about 6.20 PM, Balbir Marg, Avtar Enclave, near Indian Over Seas, New Delhi, accused defaced the public property State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 1/7 i.e. fence of the electricity pole by fixing a advertisment Board area and thus defaced the public property and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as DPDP Act).
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined one witness. The testimony of the said witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Ballu Ram. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 11.11.17, he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar as ASI and on that day he alongwith Ct. Virender were on patrolling duty. While patrolling in the area they noticed that a advertisement Board was put on the fence of the electricity Pole. He deposed that on this he clicked 3 photograph of the said Board from his mobile phone and State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 2/7 the same is Ex. P1 to P3. Thereafter the said Board was removed from there and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B also bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that after that rukka Ex. PW1/C was prepared by him and it was handed over to Ct. Virender for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Virender returned and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. The said Board was taken to the PS and deposited in the Malkhana. He further deposed that on 24.11.2017 the accused was given notice and joined the investigation and after explaining the facts he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E also bearing his signatures at point A and he was released on bail.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has admitted the allegations however stated that he was not aware about the Defacement of Property Act. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 3/7 successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of defacement of the public property by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused has stated that he was not aware about the Act and has stated that the board was put just to bring to the notice of public.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 4/7 prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) Photographs of the board are on record. The photographs clearly reveal that the board was put on the fence of the electricity pole. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1, who is the material witness shows that the accused had committed the offence of defacement of the public property/electricity pole by putting the advertisement board on the public property/electricity pole. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of board in his statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 is reproduced below for ready reference: "...PW1: On 11.11.17, I was posted at PS Paschim Vihar as ASI and on that day I alongwith Ct. Virender were on patrolling duty. While patrolling in the area we noticed that a advertisement Board was put on the fence of the electricity Pole. On this I clicked 3 photograph of the said Board from my mobile phone and the same is Ex. P1 to P3. Thereafter the said Board was removed from there and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/A bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter I prepared the site plan Ex.
State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 5/7 PW1/B also bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter rukka Ex. PW1/C was prepared by me and it was handed over to Ct. Virender for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Virender returned and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to me. The said Board was taken to the PS and deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter on 24.11.2017 the accused was given notice and joined the investigation and after explaining the facts he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E also bearing my signatures at point A and he was released on bail. Accused is present in the court today(correctly identified) At this stage, the photographs of the Board is shown to witness. After seeing the same, Board is correctly identified by him. The said photograph is already Ex. P1 to Ex. P3. ".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW1, nothing has been made out in favour of the accused. There is nothing on record to doubt the same.
(vi) Reliance can be placed upon Anil Bhatia vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as WP(C) NO. 6711/2013 wherein the court held that "unregulated putting up of Poster/ Banners/ Hoarding on the public property lead to public nuisance and runs counter to public order within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution."
State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 6/7
(vii) Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought on record that defacement of the public property was done by the accused. The cumulative and corroborating testimonies of PW1 also clearly proves that the accused has committed the offence under Section 3 DPDP Act.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.11.15
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
16:23:11 +0530
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 14th November, 2018
(This judgment consists of 7 pages)
State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah ; FIR No.390-17; PS PV 7/7
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 3902017 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Paschim Vihar State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah Case ID No. 802018 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict that he is the sole bread earner for his family. It is further submitted that he is not a previous convict and he is first time offender. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act. No previous conviction has been alleged or State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah; FIR No. 390-17; PS PV 2/2 proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by him. Convict is having a family to support. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict is facing trial for defacing the public property by putting the board and he is first time offender. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, convict is directed to deposit Rs. 1500/ as the cost of the proceedings of the court. Cost has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH i.e. the 14th November, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah; FIR No. 390-17; PS PV 2/2
State Vs. Mohd. Sana Ullah; FIR No. 390-17; PS PV 2/2