Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Singh on 30 June, 2014
State Vs. Vinod Singh
FIR No. 3/13
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 3/13
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/S Vinod Singh
C/No. 53/02
U.ID No. 02405R0242952013
Date of Institution: 21.06.2013
Name of the Complainant ASI Ramjeet Singh,
PIS NO. 28850285,
PS Domestic Airport,
New Delhi.
Name and address of accused Vinod Singh
s/o Sh. Rameshwar Singh
r/o C367, Qutab Vihar,
Phase2, Goyala Dairy,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of reserve for orders 30.06.2014
Date for announcing the orders 30.06.2014
The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1.Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed against the accused that C/No. 53/02 Page No. 1 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO24952013 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 3/13 PS Domestic Airport on 13.01.2013 at 12.10pm at Car Zone parking terminal 1B, Domestic Airport, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of Domestic Airport the accused was trying to allure the passengers on pretext that the accused will provide cheap travelling and purchasing and provide room in hotel on low fare and thereby harassing them and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Ordinance Act, 2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 3 witnesses in the list of witnesses and examined all of them. Thereafter the PE was closed and the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which accused pleaded his innocence. No defence evidence was led by accused.
3. PW1 HC Balwant Singh deposed that on 13.01.2013 he was posted at PS Domestic Airport Palam as Head Const. and on that date he was on duty at Terminal 1B from 08:00 am to 07:00 pm and at around 12:10 pm, ASI Ramjit Singh called him in the car zone parking. He further deposed that he noticed that one person was alluring the passengers coming from the arrival hall on the pretext of providing cheap taxi service and cheap hotels and providing cheap shopping and there was hindrance to the passengers and passengers were getting annoyed. He further deposed that ASI Ramjit Singh requested that person not to do so but that person did not pay any heed to the request of ASI Ramjit and continued to do so and thereafter ASI Ramjit Singh with his assistance apprehended that person whose name on inquiry C/No. 53/02 Page No. 2 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO24952013 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 3/13 PS Domestic Airport was revealed as Vinod Singh S/o Sh.Rameshwar. He further deposed that ASI Ramjit prepared tehrir mark X and handed over the same to him for the registration of the case. He further deposed that he went to the PS and got the case registered through DO HC Gajraj and after registration of the case DO handed over to him original tehrir and computerized copy of the FIR and he reached at the spot and handed over the same to ASI Ramjit Singh who carried out further investigation and IO ASI Ramjit Singh inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Mark Y and he inquired from the accused Vinod and thereafter arrested him vide arrest memo Ex PW 1/A bearing his signature at point A and thereafter accused Vinod was released on bail at the spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. PW1 correctly identified the accused.
4. PW2 HC Gajraj deposed that on 13.01.2013 he was posted at PS Domestic Airport and working as DO with duty hours from 08.00 AM to 07.00 PM and on the said day HC Balwant handed over him a rukka and on the basis of said rukka he recorded the FIR no. 3/13 and computerized copy of the same is Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he also made his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW2/B bears his signature at point A and the copy of FIR and original rukka were given to HC Balwant for further transmission.
5. PW3 ASI Ramjeet Singh deposed that on 13.01.2013, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as ASI and on that day he was on patrolling in the area and at around 12.10pm when he reached in the car C/No. 53/02 Page No. 3 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO24952013 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 3/13 PS Domestic Airport zone parking Terminal 1B of the airport, he noticed one person was annoying the passengers coming out from the arrival hall of the airport. He further deposed that that person was inducing them to provide cheap taxi service, cheap hotels and shopping in Delhi, due to which there was hindrance to the other passengers. He further deposed that he requested him not to do so but he did not pay any heed to his request and therefore he with the help of HC Balwant who was on duty there apprehended him whose name on inquiry was revealed as Vinod Singh. He further deposed that he prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/A and handed over the same to HC Balwant for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the present case registered through DO. He further deposed that thereafter HC Balwant returned back to the spot and handed over the original tehrir and computerised copy of FIR to him. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that the accused was released on bail at the spot. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of HC Balwant and after the completion of investigation he prepared the challan and filed the same in the Court. PW3 correctly identified the accused.
Statement of accused and defence
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused person U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. When all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused to afford him an opportunity to explain the circumstances so put to him, but he did not offer a shred of evidence to prove his innocence except by saying that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Further accused did not lead any C/No. 53/02 Page No. 4 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO24952013 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 3/13 PS Domestic Airport defence evidence in support of his claim of innocence.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the case of the prosecution should not be believed as IO of the case is complainant himself. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that it is not in accordance with principles of natural justice that a complainant himself investigate the case and files the charge sheet against a person. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that despite airport being a busy place, no public persons have been made witnesses to the proceedings carried out by the IO. It is further argued that despite CC TV installed on all the places in the airport, no footage has been filed by way of evidence showing the accused was alluring or soliciting the passengers.
8. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submitted that there is enough evidence against the accused and there is no legal bar that a complainant cannot become the IO of the case.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides. This case was registered against the accused for offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. The accused is a TSR driver and was soliciting and alluring the passengers outside the arrival hall and as per the prosecution case accused was alluring the passengers outside arrival hall by saying that he will ferry them in a cheap rate and also provide site C/No. 53/02 Page No. 5 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO24952013 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 3/13 PS Domestic Airport scene and also trying to keep the baggages of the passengers in his TCR despite the passengers were not interested going with him. PW3 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version and entirety. In his cross examination he stated that he asked the public persons to join investigation but everyone refused. He further stated that he asked the passenger who was being bullied by the accused but he also refused to divulge his personal information. PW1 who was with the IO on the day of offence also supported the prosecution case. In his cross examination he stated that name and address of the passengers were not noted by the IO who was being bullied by the accused. It is in knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several unscrupulous TSR and cab driver allure the passengers of cheap hotel, low fare and other benefits and most of the cases TSRs do not have registration with the PrePaid Taxi Booth. It is also common that generally passengers do not want to become witness to any legal proceedings and they avoid becoming witnesses or even complain so as to prevent further harassment of them in legal proceedings. The complainant in these cases are policemen who have the duty to prevent touting at these places. Nowhere the law prevents a policeman to become complainant or competent witness. A policeman is as competent as witness as any other person where the testimony of policeman is reliable and trustworthy and plausible explanation is given by the police for not making any public person as witness, the testimony can be relied upon. Considering the handicaps of the policeman in these cases and the evidence on record, this court is convinced that accused has committed the offence u/s 4 Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. It is not very uncommon that Public persons are C/No. 53/02 Page No. 6 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO24952013 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 3/13 PS Domestic Airport generally reluctant to join as a witness and appear before the court as a witness. In State of U.P. Vs Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686, it is observed that "it is also not proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable". Even otherwise if the evidence on record is sufficient to nail the accused, the same does not become tainted by reason of absence of any public person as witness.
Conclusion
10. In the light of the aforesaid facts, this court is of the considered view that nothing favourable could be brought by the counsel for the accused during the cross examination of the witnesses and prosecution has firmly established its case against the accused beyond the shadows of doubt. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that accused committed the offence u/s Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. and accused is accordingly convicted for the same.
Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Order on sentence will be pronounced after hearing the convict.
Announced in the Open Court (PANKAJ SHARMA)
today on 30 June, 2014 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi
th
C/No. 53/02 Page No. 7 of 7
U.ID No.02405RO24952013