Delhi District Court
State vs Md Danish on 1 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Md. Danish
FIR NO. 257/2024
PS (BADARPUR)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 28024/2024 institution 12.07.2023.
Date of commission of offence 17.04.2024.
Name of the complainant HC MANISH NAGAR Name of the accused MD. DANISH Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 03.07.2025. Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 01.08.2025.
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 17.04.2024, at about 08:00 P.M., at Badarpur Main Market, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, one banner was found affixed on an electricity pole containing the words "IICS Computer Digitally Education Indian Institute of Computer Science Multimedia & Animation signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
and Website Engineering Etc. www.IICS.india.com 9650987488" was 2025.08.01 16:26:11 +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 FIR No. 257/2024 State Vs. MD. Danish Page No. 1/5 20.02.2025 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 20.02.2025 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 two witnesses.
4. PW1 Ct. Kumar Pal Singh, he deposed that on 17.04.2024, he was posted as Constable at PS Badarpur. On that day at around 08:00 PM he along with HC Manish Nagar were on patrolling duty and when had arrived at Badarpur Main Market, they saw that one yellow colour plastic banner/ plastic board was found affixed on an electricity pole. The said banner contained "IICS" Computer Education and "Indian Institute of Computer Science". HC Manish Nagar had taken the photographs of the said banner/ plastic board and after that the said banner / plastic board was taken down. HC Manish Nagar had called at mobile number which was printed on the said banner /plastic board. Thereafter, HC Manish Nagar prepared the rukka in his presence and gave him for registration of FIR. After that he had left the spot for PS. After the registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR/rukka to HC Manish Nagar. HC Manish Nagar had prepared site plan in his presence Ex.PW1/A. HC Manish Nagar seized the said banner/ plastic board vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW2 HC Manish Nagar, who is complainant as well as Investigating Officer in the present matter, on 17.04.2024, he was posted as HC at PS Badarpur. On that day, at around 08:00 PM he along with Ct. Kumar Pal Singh were on patrolling duty and when had arrived at Badarpur Main Market, they saw that one yellow colour plastic banner/ plastic board was found affixed on an electricity pole. The said banner contained "IICS" Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.01 FIR No. 257/2024 State Vs. MD. Danish Page No. 2/5 16:28:07 +0530 Computer Education and "Indian Institute of Computer Science". He had taken the photographs of the said banner/ plastic board and after that the said banner /plastic board was taken down. He had called at mobile number which was printed on the said banner/plastic board. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW2/A and handed over to Ct. Kumar Pal Singh for registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, Ct. Kumar Pal Singh returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR/rukka to him. He had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/A. He seized the said banner/ plastic board vide seizure memo. After two days, accused went to the PS and joined the investigation. He served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC upon the accused and bound down him in the present case. He completed the investigation and prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Court.
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed on 22.04.2025.
8. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 20.02.2025, 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.
9. Final arguments were advanced at length by both the parties.
10. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
11. 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 Digitally signed by NUPUR other material; NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.01 16:28:13 +0530 FIR No. 257/2024 State Vs. MD. Danish Page No. 3/5 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.01 16:28:20 +0530 FIR No. 257/2024 State Vs. MD. Danish Page No. 4/5 out any benefit accrued to accused as per Section 3(2) DPDP Act.
14. 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 offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act is made out against accused. Accordingly, accused Md. Danish is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 01.08.2025).
Digitally signed by NUPURNUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.01 16:28:25 +0530 (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 257/2024 State Vs. MD. Danish Page No. 5/5