Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinay Kumar on 25 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 14282014
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Hari Nagar
State Vs. Vinay Kumar
Case ID No. 597562016
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 597562016
2. Date of commission of offence 06.12.2014
3. Name of complainant SI Ishwar Singh
4. Name of accused Vinay Kumar
s/o. Sh. Maheshwar Sah
r/o. B59, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 3 DPDP Act
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 25.06.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 06.12.2014, at Gate of Street between Aggarsain Park & Sahid Uddahm Singh Park, back side of DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, within the jurisdiction of PS Hari Nagar, he had put a poster/banner State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 1/9 on the government land and thus defaced the public property and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 3 of DPDP Act (hereinafter referred as Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007).
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses. The testimony of the said witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Lokender. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 09.12.2014, he was posted at PS Hari Nagar as HC. On that day, one complaint dated 06.12.2014 with regard to defacement of property was received in the PS from one Sh. Ishwar Singh, who work as SI in SDMC and after registration of the FIR the said case was marked to me by the SHO. He further deposed that he State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 2/9 alongwith SI Ishwar Singh reached at the spot i.e. at the gate of Street between Aggarsain Park & Sahid Uddam Singh Park, back side of DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he contacted the accused Vinay Kumar on the mobile number which has been mentioned on the photograph and he alongwith Ct. Mohd. Rafi reached his house. After that he arrested the accused in the the instant case, vide arrest memo, Ex. PW PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A, after narrating the entire facts of the case. He further deposed that he also personally searched him, vide memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the statement of the Ct. Mohd. Rafi. After that accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety. After that he filed the chargsheet before the court.
(b)PW2 SI Ishwar Singh. PW2 deposed that on 06.12.2014, he was on inspection duty in the jurisdiction of Hari Nagar and when he reached in the area of Gate of Street, Between Aggarsain Park & Sahid Uddam Singh Park, near Dhalla, Back side of DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and during the inspection it was found that illegal/unauthorized display of commercial advertisement through poster was displayed on government property. He further deposed that after inspection, it was found that the advertiser/firm whose State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 3/9 illegal display of advertisement have been found running on Government Public land, have not obtained any prior permission u/s. 142 and 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. He further thus for displaying illegal commercial advertisement without permission from the SDMC contravenes DMC Act and whosoever who defaces the property is also liable for prosecution under the provisions of the DPDP Act2007. He further deposed that under the said act whoever dafaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. He further deposed that after that he dispatched the complaint for lodging an FIR u/s. 3 of DPDP Act against the displayer of advertisement. This illegal display is belongs to Sh. Vinay Kumar, who is the owner of the said coaching center.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has admitted the allegations however stated that he was not aware about the Defacement of Property Act. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 4/9
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of defacement of the public property by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused has stated that he was not aware about the Act and has stated that the said poster was put just to bring to the notice of public about the advertisement of his coaching center.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 5/9 burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) PW1 has placed on record the photograph of the poster/banner. The photograph clearly clearly reveals that the poster was put on the government land. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are the material witnesses shows that the accused had committed the offence of defacement of the public property by putting a poster on the government land. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of poster in his statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 and PW2 are reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: On 09.12.2014, I was posted at PS Hari Nagar as HC. On that day, one complaint dated 06.12.2014 with regard to defacement of property was received in the PS from one Sh. Ishwar Singh, who work as SI in SDMC and after registration of the FIR the said case was marked to me by the State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 6/9 SHO. After I alongwith SI Ishwar Singh reached at the spot i.e. at the gate of Street between Aggarsain Park & Sahid Uddam Singh Park, back side of DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar and I prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. After that I contacted the accused Vinay Kumar on the mobile number which has been mentioned on the photograph and I alongwith Ct. Mohd. Rafi reached his house, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). After that I arrested the accused in the the instant case, vide arrest memo, Ex. PW PW1/B, bearing my signature at point A, after narrating the entire facts of the case. I also personally searched him, vide memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing my signature at point A. I recorded the statement of the Ct. Mohd. Rafi. After that accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety. After that I filed the chargsheet before the court.
At this stage, photograph of the said banner, which is on record is shown to the witness, who correctly identified the same. The same is Ex. P1. PW2: On 06.12.2014, I was on inspection duty in the jurisdiction of Hari Nagar and when I reached in the area of Gate of Street, Between Aggarsain Park & Sahid Uddam Singh Park, near Dhalla, Back side of DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and during the inspection it was found that illegal/unauthorized display of commercial advertisement through poster was displayed on government property. After inspection, it was found that the advertiser/firm whose illegal display of advertisement have been found running on Government Public land, have not obtained any prior permission u/s. 142 and 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Thus for displaying illegal commercial advertisement State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 7/9 without permission from the SDMC contravenes DMC Act and whosoever who defaces the property is also liable for prosecution under the provisions of the DPDP Act2007. Under the said act whoever dafaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. After that I dispatched the complaint for lodging an FIR u/s. 3 of DPDP Act against the displayer of advertisement. This illegal display is belongs to Sh. Vinay Kumar, who is the owner of the said coaching center.
At this stage, photograph of the said banner, which is on record is shown to the witness, who correctly identified the same. The same is already Ex. P1.
(v) The testimony of PW1 and PW2 have remained uncontested and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to doubt the same.
(vi) Reliance can be placed upon Anil Bhatia vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as WP(C) NO. 6711/2013 wherein the court held that "unregulated putting up of Poster/ Banners/ Hoarding on the public property lead to public nuisance and runs counter to public order within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution."
State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 8/9
(vii) Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought on record that defacement of the public property was done by the accused. The cumulative and corroborating testimony of PW1 and PW2 also clearly prove that the accused has committed the offence under Section 3 DPDP Act.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.06.25
16:26:20 +0530
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 25th of June , 2018
(This judgment consists of 9 pages)
State Vs. Vinay Kr.; FIR No. 1428-14; PS HN 9/9
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 14282014 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Hari Nagar State Vs. Vinay Kumar Case ID No. 597562016 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict that he is the sole bread earner for his family. It is further submitted by the convict that he is not a previous convict and he is first time offender. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act. No previous conviction has been alleged or State Vs. Vinay Kr; FIR No.1428-14; PS HN 2/2 proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by him. Convict is having a family to support. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict is facing trial for defacing the public property by putting a poster for advertisement and he is first time offender. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, convict is directed to deposit Rs. 1000 / as the cost of the proceedings of the court. The same has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH
i.e. the 25th June, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Vinay Kr; FIR No.1428-14; PS HN 2/2
State Vs. Vinay Kr; FIR No.1428-14; PS HN 2/2