Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF TAPASYA AGARWAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. AJAY
FIR NO. 432/2023
PS (SARITA VIHAR)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 8242/2023 institution 07.10.2023 Date of commission of offence 20.08.2023 Name of the complainant HC KULDEEP SINGH Name of the accused AJAY Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 12.03.2026 Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 08.04.2026 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act on the allegations that on 20.08.2023 at about 07:30 P.M., At Main Road E Pocket, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, one board was found affixed on the electricity pole containing the words "Drishay Public School Session 2023-2024 Hurry Up Free Admission Free Books Free Dress Free Note Books Admission Open Play Group to VIII Class Dance Class Music Class Yoga Class 9363631010, 936362020 " which was Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL FIR No. 432/2023 State Vs. Ajay Page No. 1/6 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.08 16:47:06 +0530 found affixed. It is alleged that the accused had affixed the said board containing the above said words on public property in public view.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2023 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 17.05.2024 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to accused on the same date, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before recording of prosecution evidence, accused admitted copy of FIR without admitting contents thereof. To prove its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses.
4. PW1 Mr. Ajay Kumar being summoned witness deposed that he was working as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel. Thereafter, a notice Ex. A-4 was received in his Airtel Office, New Delhi with a direction to provide CAF and CDR of mobile no. 9363631010. He further deposed that, as per notice he gave reply to the police official alongwith CAF (Customer Application Form) and CDR and along with relevant certificates u/s 65B IEA. His reply is Ex. PW1/A. CAF alongwith CDR and their certificates u/s 65 B IEA is Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that as per CAF the said mobile number was registered in the name of one Sh. Dinesh Bidhuri.
5. PW 2 Ct. Anil Kumar, deposed that on 20.08.2023, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Sarita Vihar. He was on patrolling duty along with HC Kuldeep Singh at about 07:00 P.M., they reached near Main Road, E- Pocket, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and noticed one board hanging on the electricity pole containing the words "Drishay Pubic Schoo, Session 2023-2024, Hurry Up Admission Open, Free Books" and some other words. HC Kuldeep Singh then took the photographs of the same and then removed the same. HC Kuldeep Singh then seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, HC Kuldeep Singh then prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him to get the FIR registered at the PS. Thereafter, he returned to the PS and got the present FIR registered through the then DO. After getting the FIR registered, he returned to the spot Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.08 FIR No. 432/2023 State Vs. Ajay Page No. 2/6 16:47:12 +0530 alongwith copy of FIR, certificate u/s 65B of IEA and original rukka to HC Kuldeep Singh as the investigation of the case was marked to HC Kuldeep Singh. During the course of investigation, IO / HC Kuldeep Singh prepared the site plan at the spot vide memo Ex.PW1/2. Thereafter, they returned to the PS alongwith the case property. Thereafter, IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. IO then recorded the statement HC Anil Kumar u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. He correctly identified the accused and the photograph of case property during his deposition before the Court. The photograph of case property is Ex.P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
5. PW3 HC Kuldeep Singh, he deposed that on 20.08.2023, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Sarita Vihar. He was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Anil Kumar at about 07:00 P.M., they reached near Main Road, E Pocket, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and noticed one board was hanging on the electricity pole containing the words "Drishay Public School, Session 2023-
2024, Hurry Up Admission, Open Free Books" and some other words. HC Kuldeep Singh then took the photographs of the same and then removed the same. HC Kuldeep Singh then seized it vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/1. Thereafter, he then prepared the rukka vide memo Ex. PW3/A and handed over the same to Ct. Anil Kumar to get the FIR registered at the PS. Ct. Anil Kumar then left the spot and returned to the spot after some time alongwith copy of FIR, certificate u/s 65B of IEA and original rukka and handed over the same to HC Kuldeep Singh as the investigation of the case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, he prepared the site plan at the spot vide memo already Ex.PW2/2. Thereafter, they returned to the PS where he deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He then recorded the statement of Ct. Anil Kumar u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. During further investigation, on 01.09.2023, he reached at the address / school mentioned on the said banner where he met the accused. He then informed the accused about the commission of offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act. However, the accused could not give any satisfactory answer to the same. Thereafter, he then served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC upon the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/B and bound down the accused in the Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL FIR No. 432/2023 State Vs. Ajay Page No. 3/6 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.08 16:47:18 +0530 present case. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused vide interrogation report Ex. PW3/C and recorded his disclosure statement. After due inquiry, he released the accused vide pabandinama vide memo Ex. PW 3/D. Thereafter, he left for the PS. Thereafter, on the next date, he wrote letter to the concerned Nodal Officer to obtain CAF and CDR of the mobile number mentioned on the said banner vide memo Ex. PW3/E. Thereafter, he then obtained CAF and CDR of the mobile number and it was found to be in the name of one Sh. Dinesh Bidhuri. Thereafter, he went to the school and met the said Dinesh Bidhuri, who then informed that the said mobile SIM card is being used by the accused for official purpose. Thereafter, he then recorded the statement of Sh. Dinesh Bidhuri u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. After the completion of the investigation he prepared the chareg-sheet and produced same before the concerned authorities for the further proceedings. He correctly identified the accused and the photograph of case property during his deposition before the Court. The photograph of case property is Ex.P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed on 15.01.2026.
7. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 11.03.2026, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence and chose to lead any defence evidence. However, subsequently, vide separate statement of the accused, he chose not to lead DE and opportunity to lead the same was closed.
8. Final arguments were advanced at length by both the parties.
9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
10. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients required to prove offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act in this case are :
a. That the accused has defaced any public property by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material;
Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.08 16:47:24 +0530 FIR No. 432/2023 State Vs. Ajay Page No. 4/6 b. That the public property is situated in public view;
c. That writing or marking on public property in public view was not for indicating the name and address of the owner /occupier of the said property;
d. or that the defacement of public property had been done for benefit of the accused with his knowledge or consent.
11. Now let us examine if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present accused for offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act.
12. The material witness in the present case is complainant/IO himself.
Nowhere in the entire charge sheet or in his testimony, complainant/IO has alleged that any person had actually seen the accused putting up/affixing the board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and place. Nothing has been produced before court to state that the said board was installed/affixed by the accused himself or at his instance or for his benefit. Complainant/IO has not pointed out specifically anywhere in the entire charge sheet as to how and in what manner he conducted investigation to arrive at the conclusion that it was the accused who had installed/affixed board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and place. There is nothing available on record to suggest that any public person had informed complainant/IO of accused indulging in illegal activities as per Section 3 DPDP Act. Infact, no public person has been named as a witness in the present matter. Furthermore, in cross-examination, complainant/IO has admitted that he did not see accused or any other person acting at the behest of accused, installing/affixing the said board. Furthermore, the entire charge-sheet is silent if the said board was installed/affixed for the benefit of accused in any manner. The prosecution has not pleaded a case pointing out any benefit accrued to accused as per Section 3(2) DPDP Act.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is not even an iota of evidence against accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the board had been installed/affixed by accused or at behest of accused and therefore, no Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL FIR No. 432/2023 State Vs. Ajay Page No. 5/6 AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.08 16:47:29 +0530 offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act is made out against accused. Accordingly, accused Ajay is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 08.04.2026).
Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.08 16:47:35 +0530 (Tapasya Agarwal) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 432/2023 State Vs. Ajay Page No. 6/6