Delhi District Court
State vs . Manjeet Kumar & Anr. on 14 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NABEELA WALI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 441/2019
PS : IGI Airport
U/s : 4 (C) DPTMT
State Vs. Manjeet Kumar & Anr.
JUDGMENT
(a) S. No. of the Case : 1645/2020
(b) Date of Commission of Offence : 24.09.2019
(c) Name of the complainant : /SI Satish Kumar, PIS No. 160905210, PS:IGI Airport, New Delhi.
(d) Name,parentage & address of : 1)Manjeet Kumar,
accused persons S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o E-413, C-Bock, Inder
Puri, New Delhi
2) Pradeep
S/o Sh. Mehar Singh,
R/o A-60, Ram Nagar,
Karnal, Haryana,
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 4 (C) of DPTMT Act
(f) Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Date of final arguments : 14.11.2022
(h) Date of Decision : 14.11.2022
(i) Decision : Both accused are convicted
FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 1 of 8
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case adumbrated by the prosecution is that on 24.09.2019 at about 07:00 pm, Inspt Satish Kumar along with HC Ram Avtar were present near arrival area at pillar no. 9 at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi. During patrolling they found two persons soliciting the passengers by alluring them to arrange cheap conveyance and hotel. On interrogation both persons disclosed heir names as Manjeet Kumar and Pradeep. The accused persons along with their car bearing no. HR26AL4798 were then taken to Police Station IGI Airport and after completion of formalities, present case was registered against both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4(c) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Act, 2010 (hereinafter, referred to as "DPTMT Act").
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against both the accused persons on 03.03.2020. Cognizance was duly taken by this Court and after supplying of copy of charge sheet and documents to the accused persons, notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 4 (c) of DPTMT Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, matter proceeded for prosecution evidence. During prosecution evidence, ASI Kehar Singh was FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 2 of 8 examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 24.09.2019, he made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. PW-1 further deposed that he registered the present FIR which is Ex.PW1/B (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he handed over the FIR and original rukka to HC Ram Avtar for handing over the same to SI Satish for further investigation. PW-1 was not cross-examined by both the accused persons despite opportunity.
4. Inspt Satish Kumar was examined as PW-2 and narrated the sequence of events. PW-2 deposed that while he was on patrolling duty he found the accused persons indulging in offering cheap taxi and hotel to passengers. As per PW-2 both the accused were trying to board passengers in their car bearing no. HR26AL4798. PW-2 proved the rukka Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. As per PW-1, he had prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW2/B, seizure memo of Maruti Car bearing no. HR26AL4798 Ex.PW2/C, arrest memo of both accused persons Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively all bearing signatures of PW-2 at point A. The identity of the accused persons was not disputed by their counsel. Ld. Counsel for both accused did not examine the witness despite opportunity.
5. ASI Ram Avtar was examined as PW-2. The witness narrated the sequence of events similar to PW-2 and identified his signatures at point B on Ex.PW2/B, ExPW2/C, ExPW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. The identity of the accused persons was not disputed by their counsel. Ld. Counsel for both accused did not examine the witness despite opportunity.
FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 3 of 8
6. No other prosecution witness was examined and PE was closed.
7. Thereafter accused persons were examined u/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they admitted being present at the spot on the date and time of incident. However, they denied indulging in any touting activities. Both accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, matter proceeded with final arguments.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused presons and scrupulously gone through the records of the case.
9. Before returning my finding, let me reproduce relevant sections of DPTMT Act.
Section 2(f) of the DPTMT Act:- Touting includes enticing, misguiding or coercing for shopping, accommodation, transportation, sight-seeing or pestering for any particular premises, including the precincts thereof, any person, establishment, dealer or manufacturer for personal consideration Section 3 of the DPTMT Act:- No person shall:- (a) commit any act of touting or malpractice against any tourist; (b) abet commission of any act of touting or malpractice against any tourist; (c) attempt to commit any act of touting or malpractice against any tourist.
FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 4 of 8 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.
10. It is plain from the provisions of DPTMT Act that touting includes enticing, misguiding or coercing for transportation or accommodation etc. any passenger. Also 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 present case is shown FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 5 of 8 to be carried out by SI SI Satish Kumar.
11. It is limpid that the prosecution in he present case has only examined police witnesses. Thus, it is to be seen whether reliance can be placed upon their testimony. 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 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".
12. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution should stand on its own legs and cannot derive any benefit from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. It FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 6 of 8 is further well settled that the primary burden of proof to prove the offence in criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution.
13. Now, PW-2 and PW-3 are material witnesses of the prosecution who deposed specifically to the effect that on 24.09.2019 both accused persons were apprehended for alluring passengers into providing cheap taxi and hotel services. Further accused persons have also admitted their presence at the spot during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. No plausible explanation or evidence is brought on record by the accused persons to justify their false implication by the complainant. Mere fact that no public witness has been joined during investigation in the present case, is not fatal to the case of prosecution. It is well known that public persons choose not to become party to the investigation for obvious reasons. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Ambika Prasad and Ors v. State, (2002) 2 Crimes 63 SC, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations and material on record, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved that accused persons committed the act of touting by alluring passengers/tourists for cheap taxi and hotel and thereby causing annoyance to the passengers/tourists or general public. Therefore, the accused persons namely Manjeet Kumar and Pradeep are convicted of offence under Section 4(c) of DPTMT Act. Copy of this judgment be given to the convicts free of cost.
FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 7 of 8
15. Ordered Accordingly. Convicts be now heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 14th NOVEMBER, 2022 This judgment contains eight pages and each page is signed by me.
(NABEELA WALI) ACMM-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI 14.11.2022 FIR No:- 441/2019 State v. Manjeet Kumar & Anr Page No. 8 of 8