Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/8833/2019 on 6 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU AGGARWAL,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Indresh Sonkar
FIR No. 346/2017
Police Station : Dabri
Under Section : 3 of The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of
Property Act, 2007
Unique Computer ID Number : 0008833/2019
Date of institution : 03.04.2019
Date of reserving : Oral
Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2020
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of offence : On or before 07.12.2016
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Shiv Kumar Saxena, Director Independent NGO G-64,(105), Gali no. 22, Rajapuri Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
c) Name, parentage and address : Indresh Sonkar, of the accused S/o Sh. Santlal Sonkar, R/o Kothi No. T-22, Atul Grove Road, C Place, New Delhi.
d) Offence complained of : 3 of The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007
e) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
f) Final order : Accused stands acquitted of the offences punishable 3 of State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 1 of 7 The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007
g) Date of final order : 06.01.2020 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The present case has been registered on the complaint of Sh. Shiv Kumar Saxena, Director of an independent NGO regarding painting of an advertisement on the wall of plot having iron gate situated at Dwarka Road no. 201, Madhu Vihar Bus Stand, SDMC Public Toilet, Service Road, nearby Bharat Vihar Welcome Gate. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows :-
1. A complaint was received at PS Dabri on 07.12.2016 regarding defacement of a wall (painting of an advertisement) at Dwarka Road no. 201, Madhu Vihar Bus Stand, SDMC Public Toilet, Service Road, nearby Bharat Vihar Welcome Gate. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was lodged.
2. During the course of investigation, the IO prepared the site plan and made inquiries at the telephone number given in the advertisement and reached at the residential address of Dr. Udit Raj, Member of Parliament i.e. Kothi No. T-22, Atul Grove Road, Connaught Place, Delhi, where he came to know that the works related to advertisements of Dr. Udit Raj are being looked after by accused Indresh Sonkar and the telephone numbers given in the advertisement also remains with accused Indresh Sonkar.
3. On the basis of the above investigation, the IO served a notice U/s 41 Cr. P. C. upon accused Indresh Sonkar and State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 2 of 7 filed the charge-sheet in the court.
2. After filing of the charge-sheet, accused was summoned and notice for the commission of offence U/s 3 of The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the case:-
3.1 PW-1 ASI Dharampal is the Duty Officer who had recorded the FIR no. 346/2017 Ex.PW1/A in the present case and made his endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the complaint.
3.2. PW-2 Sh. Shiv Kumar Saxena is the complainant in the present case. He has deposed that on 28.11.2016, he made telephonic complaint to SDMC Najafgarh Zone regarding defacement/wall writing at Plot having iron gate situated at Dwarka Road no. 201, Madhu Vihar Bus Stand, SDMC Public Toilet, Service Road, nearby Bharat Vihar Welcome Gate. On the said wall, it was written ''Dr. Udit Raj ki mahrailey, Anusuchit Janjati, Janjati Maha Railey at Ram Leela Ground''. SDMC did not take any action and he made complaint Ex.PW2/A to PS Dabri. After one week or so, FIR was registered on his complaint but neither SDMC nor police has removed the illegal defacement. He clicked the photographs of the wall from his mobile. The photographs are Ex.P1 and the certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW2/B. 3.3 PW-3 HC Lalu Ram has deposed that on 30.06.2017, he was posted at PS Dabri. He got the complaint Ex.PW1/A and it was endorsed by the then SHO PS Dabri Inspector State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 3 of 7 Vijay Pal vide endorsement Ex.PW3/A. 3.4 PW-4 ASI Chaman Singh is the investigating officer of the case. He has deposed that the present case was marked to him by the SHO on 12.11.2017. He has prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/B. He inquired the address of Dr. Udit Raj and met with an accused. Accused told him that he was looking after the work related to the Railies of Dr. Udit Raj and landline number given in the advertisement is the office number of Dr. Udit Raj and mobile number is of Dr. Udit Raj but the said mobile phone is being operated by him. He served notice U/s 41 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW4/C upon him.
4. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was closed.
6. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr. P. C. where he has negated all the allegations. The accused has contended that IO ASI Chaman Singh had come to inquire from him but he had not shown him any photographs. He has stated that the IO had shown him the FIR and had asked him to sign stating that nothing happens in such FIRs. He added that he had not informed the IO that he was looking after the advertisement and work related to Railey of Dr. Udit Raj and he (IO) has falsely deposed in this regard. He contended that he has no information who has defaced the wall in question. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case file.
8. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt as the accused was an State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 4 of 7 employee of Dr. Udit Raj, Member of Parliament and was looking after the works related to advertisements and even the phone numbers mentioned in the advertisement were found under his control.
9. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused as the accused is in no ways related to the painting of the advertisement on the wall in question nor he had any knowledge regarding the same. The accused was merely an employee in the office of Dr. Udit Raj, Member of Parliament where he used to attend the calls. It has been argued that even the duty of attending the calls was on rotational basis and was not fixed and the phone numbers given in the advertisement were not in the exclusive control/possession of the accused.
10. The accused has been charge U/s 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007. The Section 3 of DPDP Act is reproduced as under :-
3. Penalty for defacement of property.- (1) 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 extent 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 present, chairman, director, partner, manager, secretary, agent or any other officer or persons State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 5 of 7 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.
11. Under Section 3 of DPDP Act, a person who defaces the property is liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that it was accused who had defaced the property beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Coming to the present case, photographs Ex.PW4/A reflect that the wall in dispute has been defaced. The question that arises in the present case is whether the accused has defaced the said wall or whether the said wall has been defaced for the benefit of the accused. Nowhere in the advertisement in question, the name of accused has been mentioned. The complainant has been examined as PW-2 and in the cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen any person writing on the wall in question. He has admitted that he had not seen the accused defacing the wall in question and he had not named the accused in his complaint Ex.PW2/A. He has admitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. IO ASI Chaman Singh has been examined as PW-4. He has deposed that he went to the address of Dr. Udit Raj where he met with the accused. He showed the photographs of the wall to the accused and accused informed him that the advertisement and work related to the railies of Dr. Udit Raj was looked after by him and the mobile number as mentioned in the State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 6 of 7 advertisement in question belongs to Dr. Udit Raj but was used by him. There is nothing on record to prove that accused was employee of Dr. Udit Raj or that he was looking after the work related to the raillies of Dr. Udit Raj or that the wall in question was defaced by the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove the case as against the accused.
13. Accordingly, accused Indresh Sonkar is acquitted of the charges U/s 3 of The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007.
Digitally signed by ANU Announced in open Court on 06.01.2020. ANU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2020.01.08 10:40:16 +0530 (ANU AGGARWAL) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI. State v. Indresh Sonkar FIR No. 346/17 P.S.:Dabri Page 7 of 7