Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Singh on 2 March, 2015
State Vs. Vinod Singh
FIR No. 65/13
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following
particulars:
FIR No. 65/13
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/S Vinod Singh
C/No. 24/02
U.ID No. 02405R0070632014
Date of Institution: 22.02.2014
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, New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of reserve for orders 02.03.2015
Date for announcing the orders 02.03.2015
C/No.24/02 Page No. 1 of 7
U.ID No.02405RO070632014
State Vs. Vinod Singh
FIR No. 65/13
PS Domestic Airport
The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1.Charge U/S 4 DPTM Act was framed against the accused that on 21.09.2014 at 09:10pm in front of arrival hall of Domestic Airport, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport accused was alluring the passengers coming out from the arrival hall on the pretext of providing cheap hotels and taxi service and was touching their baggages, due to which the passengers were getting annoyed and he was requested by ASI Ramjeet Singh from PS Domestic Airport not to do so but accused did not pay any heed to his request and therefore he was charged for committing 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 Surender Singh deposed that he was the duty officer at the relevant date and time and he proved on record the FIR Ex.PW1/A and endorsement Ex.PW1/B. C/No.24/02 Page No. 2 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO070632014 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 65/13 PS Domestic Airport
4. PW2 HC Dharampal deposed that on 21.09.2013 he was posted at PS Domestic Airport Palam as Head Const. and on that date he was on duty at arrival hall from 7.00pm to 8.00am and on that day, at about 9.00/9/15pm, ASI Ramjit Singh called him in the Car Zone parking , where one person namely Vinod Kumar was alluring the passengers on the pretext of providing cheap hotels and taxi service. ASI Ramjit Singh requested him not to do so but he did not pay any heed and continued to do so. Thereafter, accused was apprehended and ASI Ramjeet prepared a tehrir and sent him to the PS for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, he returned to spot and handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to ASI Ramjitt. The accused Vinod Kumar was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. PW2 correctly identified the accused.
5. PW3 ASI Ramjeet Singh deposed that on 21.09.2013, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as ASI and on that day he was on patrolling duty and at around 9.10PM, when he reached in front of car zone parking, Terminal 1 B Domestic Airport, he noticed one person was alluring the passengers coming out from the arrival hall of the airport and he was inducing them to provide cheap taxi service, cheap hotels and shopping in Delhi, due to which there was hindrance to the passengers and they were getting annoyed. He requested him not to do so but he did not pay any heed to his C/No.24/02 Page No. 3 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO070632014 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 65/13 PS Domestic Airport request and thereafter he called HC Dharampal who was present there on duty and apprehended the accused and on inquiry the name of the person was revealed as Vinod Singh. He prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A and got the case registered through DO by sending HC Dharam Pal to PS for registration of FIR and after registration of the case copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to him. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and recorded the statement of witnesses and completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 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 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 C/No.24/02 Page No. 4 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO070632014 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 65/13 PS Domestic Airport 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 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 C/No.24/02 Page No. 5 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO070632014 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 65/13 PS Domestic Airport 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 C/No.24/02 Page No. 6 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO070632014 State Vs. Vinod Singh FIR No. 65/13 PS Domestic Airport Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. It is not very uncommon that Public persons are 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 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) today on 2nd day of March, 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi C/No.24/02 Page No. 7 of 7 U.ID No.02405RO070632014