Delhi District Court
State vs . Atul Tanwar on 3 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 502018
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Rajouri Garden
State Vs. Atul Tanwar
Case ID No. 8922018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 8922018
2. Date of commission of offence 26.12.2017
3. Name of complainant HC Rajesh
4. Name of accused Atul Tanwar
s/o. Sh. Rakesh Tanwar
R/o. WZ58/2, Tatarpur, 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 03.04.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on State Vs. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 1/7 26.12.2017, at Cambridge School, Subhash Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Rajouri Garden, he had put a banner on the wall of the park and thus defaced the public property and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 3 of DPDP Act (hereinafter referred as Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007).
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 Rajesh. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 15.01.2018, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC. One complaint dated 26.12.2017 with regard to defacement of property State Vs. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 2/7 was received in the PS from one Rajesh, who work as ASI in SDMC. On 15.01.2018 the same was marked to him by the SHO. He deposed that after that he registered a case against the accused Atul Tanwar. After that he alongwith Ct. Shailash reached at the spot i.e. near Cambridge School, Subhash nagar, Delhi and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he contacted with the accused on his mobile phone which has been mentioned on the said poster, which was affixed on the wall of the park. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. Accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety. He recorded the statement of Ct. Shailash. After that, he filed the chargsheet before the court.
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 State Vs. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 3/7 has 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 said board was put just to bring to the notice of public about the accommodation for students.
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. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 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) PW1 has placed on record the photograph of the Banner. The photograph clearly reveals that the board was put on the wall of the park. 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 by putting a banner on the wall of the park. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of banner 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 15.01.2018, I was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC. One complaint dated 26.12.2017 with regard to defacement of property was received in the PS from one Rajesh, who work as ASI in SDMC. On 15.01.2018 the same was marked to me by the SHO. After that I registered a case against the accused Atul Tanwar, who is present in the court today, correctly identified. After I alongwith Ct. Shailash reached at the spot i.e. near Cambridge School, Subhash nagar, Delhi and I prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. After that I contacted with the accused on his mobile phone which has State Vs. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 5/7 been mentioned on the said poster, which was affixed on the wall of the park. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing my signature at point A. Accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety. I recorded the statement of Ct. Shailash. After that I filed the chargsheet before the court.
(v) The testimony of PW1 has remained uncontested and unrebutted. 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."
(vii) Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought on record that defacement of the public property was done by the accused. The cumulative and corroborating testimony 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 State Vs. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 6/7 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: 2018.04.07
15:24:47 +0530
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 03rd April , 2018
(This judgment consists of 7 pages)
State Vs. Atul; FIR No.50-18; PS RG 7/7
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 502018 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Atul Case ID No. 8922018 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 by the convict that he is not a previous convict. 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 proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as State Vs. Atul; FIR No. 50/18; PS RG 2/2 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 a poster for advertisement of his shop. 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.500 / as the cost of the proceedings of the court. The same has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH
i.e. the 03rd April, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Atul; FIR No. 50/18; PS RG 2/2