Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharmender Kumar on 1 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-1,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO. : 264/19
U/S : 4 (c) The Delhi Prevention of Touting & Malpractices
against Tourists Act 2010
PS : IGI Airport
State Vs. Dharmender Kumar
a. ID No. of the case 525/2020
b. Date of commission of 16.06.2019
offence
c. Date of institution of the case 23.01.2020
d. Name of the complainant ASI Mukesh, No.12/A, PIS
No.28892365, PS:IGI Airport, New
Delhi.
e. Name & Address of the Dharmender Kumar S/o Anar Singh
accused person R/o. H. No. T-3 Village Prahladpur,
Delhi Cantt.,South West Delhi.
f. Offence complained off Under Section 4-C DPTMT Act
g. Charge framed Under Section 4-C DPTMT Act
h. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
i. Arguments heard on 01.02.2020
j. Final order Convicted for the commission of
offence punishable u/s 4-C DPTMT
Act
k Date of Judgment 01.02.2020
1.The case adumbrated by the prosecution is that on 16.06.2019, SI Rajdeep Singh was present in the PS. On the same day, ASI Mukesh was on duty at Terminal-3, IGI Airport and at about 11.45 a.m during patrolling when he reached at Arrival Pillar No. 11-12, FIR No.264/19 State Vs. Dharmender Kumar Page No. 1 of 5 he saw that one person was alluring the passengers/foreigners and asked them if they wanted cheap conveyance and also cheap hotel and passengers were getting annoyed. Then he apprehended the accused Dharmender Kumar and brought him to PS IGI Airport alongwith his vehicle bearing No. DL-1TA-0073 which was being used in touting and produced before Station House Officer and after completion of formalities, the present FIR was registered, accused was arrested and the challan was filed by SI Rajdeep Singh.
2. After appearance of accused, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to the accused and he was served with notice for offence U/s 4(C) of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices Against Tourists Act 2010 (DPTMT) U/s 251 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to which accused pleaded not guilty and specified his defence that accusations against him were false.
3. During prosecution evidence, SI Rajdeep Singh was examined as PW-1. He narrated the sequence of events. He was also cross- examined on behalf of the accused. Thereafter, prosecution evidence stood closed and accused was examined U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he declined all the incriminating circumstances against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated as he was not present at the spot. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was proceeded with final arguments.
4. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and fastidiously gone through the records of the case.
FIR No.264/19 State Vs. Dharmender Kumar Page No. 2 of 5
5. Before returning my finding, let me reproduce relevant sections of DPTMT Act.
Section 6 of DPTMT Act:- (1) if an offence of malpractice or touting takes place in the presence of a police officer, not below the rank of an assistant sub-inspector of police,such police officer may arrest the person and record his observations about such conduct of the individual that constituted the offence of touting. (2) Any police officer having reason to suspect a person of indulging in the act of touting or malpractice against a tourist may search such person and may require an account in relation to any articles found in his possession and may seize such article if found suspicious and of such nature which could be used for commission of touting or malpractice against tourists. (3) A police officer not below the rank of an assistant sub- inspector of Police, may enter a public or private establishment which he has reason to believe was or is being used as a place for commission of touting or malpractice against tourists and inspect the same.
Section 9 Investigation, etc of offences:- Sub section-2 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank of assistant sub-inspector shall investigate an offence under this Act.
6. It is plain from the abovementioned provisions of DPTMT Act that police officials not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector has powers to arrest the accused and also investigate the case. In compliance of this mandatory provision, investigation into the FIR No.264/19 State Vs. Dharmender Kumar Page No. 3 of 5 present case is shown to be carried out by SI Rajdeep Singh.
7. It is limpid that the prosecution has examined one police witness only. Thus, it is to be seen whether reliance can be placed upon their testimonies. The law in this regard is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmod Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC344 as under:-
".....The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U. P. Vs. Anil Singh, State, Govt. of NCT of Deli Vs. Sunil and Another and Ramjee Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar, has laid down recently in Kasmiri Lal Vs. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the Court cannot definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the Court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the Court FIR No.264/19 State Vs. Dharmender Kumar Page No. 4 of 5 may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weights over the quantity of evidence".
8. PW-1 SI Rajdeep Singh is the material witness of the prosecution who has deposed specifically to the effect that the accused was making attempts to commit acts of touting by forcing the foreign passengers to hire his taxi, and was making foreign passengers feel uncomfortable. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused regarding his deposition but nothing adverse has come on record as PW-1 stood entrenched in his stand. Further more, the seizure of Vehicle No. DL-1TA-0073 also corroborates the case of the prosecution. No evidence has been led by the accused to contradict the charges levelled against him.
9. Having regard to above discussion, the accused Dharmender Kumar is held "guilty" for offence punishable U/s 4(C) of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices Against Tourists Act 2010 (DPTMT).
Announced in the open Court on 01.02.2020 (NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA) ACMM-01/New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains five pages and each page is signed by me.
(NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA) ACMM-01/New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi FIR No.264/19 State Vs. Dharmender Kumar Page No. 5 of 5