Delhi District Court
State ...........Prosecution vs . on 24 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE09, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 21/20
PS Domestic Airport
Under Section 4 (c) DPTMT Act
Cr. Case no. 1645/21
CNR no. DLSW020088192021
IN THE MATTER OF:
State ...........Prosecution
Vs.
Rajesh Singh
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o 15/250, Kalyanpuri East,
New Delhi. .............Accused
1. Name of complainant : HC Pradeep
2. Name of accused : Rajesh Singh
3. Offence complained of : Under Section 4(c), The
Delhi Prevention of Touting
and Malpractices against
Tourist Act 2010.
4. Plea of accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 13.02.2020
6. Date of institution of case : 02.02.2021
7. Date of reserving judgment : 24.05.2022
8. Date of pronouncement : 24.05.2022
9. Final judgment : Convicted
State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.1/7
Digitally signed
BHARTI by BHARTI
GARG
GARG Date: 2022.05.24
16:36:16 +0530
JUDGMENT:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused in respect of offences punishable U/s 4 (c) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.02.2020 the complainant HC Pradeep was on anti touting duty at Pick Up Zone, Terminal1, from 08:00 am to 07:00 pm. At around 01:15 pm, he witnessed that one person was inducing the passengers coming out of Arrival Hall on the pretext of providing them with taxi services and hotels at discounted rates in Delhi and was pointing towards his vehicle bearing registration no.DL1RTA9240 parked at a distance. He was instructed not to indulge in touting as the passengers were getting annoyed but he did not desist from his conduct. Thereafter, the complainant apprehended the driver and enquired about his name and address, who disclosed his name as Rajesh Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh. He asked some passengers to lodge a complaint agaisnt accused but they did not agree and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Then he took the accused alongwith his vehicle to the police station and handed over to SI Naveen. The FIR was registered on the same date. Investigation was conducted by the IO wherein statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded, the accused was arrested and later on, was released on bail. The vehicle of accused was seized. The vehicle was subsequently released to the rightful owner pursuant to the order of Court. Upon the culmination of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.
3. Cognizance of the offence under Section 4 (c) of the Act was taken against the accused and the copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in compliance with Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth 'Cr.P.C').
State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.2/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date: 2022.05.24 16:36:26 +0530
4. On the basis of material filed along with the chargesheet, notice of accusation u/S 4 (a) of the Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused admitted the genuineness of FIR registered on 13.02.2020 under Section 294 of Cr. P. C. and consequently, ASI Manita was dropped from the list of witnesses and the FIR was marked as Ex.C1 vide court order dated 12.10.2021.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses in all. PW2 HC Pradeep, the complainant, testified on the lines of his complaint that on 13.02.2020 he was on anti touting duty at Pick Up Zone, Terminal1, from 08:00 am to 07:00 pm. At around 01:15 pm, he witnessed that one person was inducing the passengers coming out of Arrival Hall on the pretext of providing them with taxi services and hotels at discounted rates in Delhi and was pointing towards his vehicle bearing registration no.DL1RTA9240 parked at a distance. He was instructed not to indulge in touting as the passengers were getting annoyed but he did not desist from his conduct. Thereafter, the complainant apprehended the driver and enquired about his name and address, who disclosed his name as Rajesh Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh. He asked some passengers to lodge a complaint agaisnt accused but they did not agree and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He took the accused alongwith his vehicle to the police station and handed over to SI Naveen. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A, prepared the tehrir and got the present FIR registered. Then IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and seized the abovesaid vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, the accused was released on police bail and seized vehicle was submitted to malkhana. The witness correctly identified the accused in court. He also correctly identified the vehicle through photographs Ex.P1 (colly).
6. In the crossexamination, PW1 stated that he did not serve notice upon State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.3/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.05.24 16:36:35 +0530 public person who left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He stated that there were CCTV cameras installed at the spot but he did not collect any CCTV footage in the present matter. He never visited the spot of incident alongwith IO during further course of investigation.
7. PW1 ASI Ved Prakash, MHC (M), brought the summoned record i.e. register no.19 and as per the entry no.249 of the said register Ex.PW1/A (OSR), the IO had deposited the seized vehicle in the Malkhana.
8. PW3 SI Naveen, the IO, testified as to the investigation conducted by him. After recording the statement of complainant, he prepared the tehrir Ex.PW3/A and got the FIR registered. He stated that the Duty Officer endorsed upon the tehrir vide DD no.21A Ex.PW3/B in his presence. Upon the receipt of original tehrir and copy of FIR, he proceeded to arrest the accused and seize his vehicle. He released the vehicle on superdari vide superdiginama Mark A in compliance with court order. He got the photographs of the vehicle clicked. He also obtained the valuation report of the vehicle which is Ex.PW3/D and prepared the panchnama report Ex.PW3/C. He correctly identified the accused in Court. In his crossexamination, PW3 stated that he did not visit the spot of incident. He did not obtain the CCTV footage. Although he admitted that the spot of incident is under CCTV surveillance.
9. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with 313 Cr. P. C. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence were put to the accused. The accused denied all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was merely sitting in his car at the spot and that he does not know why the police official wrongly apprehended him. The accused chose to not lead any defence evidence and hence, the matter was taken up for final arguments.
State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.4/7
Digitally signed
BHARTI by BHARTI GARG
GARG Date: 2022.05.24
16:36:48 +0530
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against accused beyond reasonable doubts as the testimony of all witnesses has remained unshaken and corroborated. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused has argued for his acquittal on the ground that he has been falsely implicated as there is no public witness to testify as to the veracity of case and further no CCTV footage has been produced to corroborate the testimony of police witnesses.
11. Arguments heard. Perused the record. Considered.
12. The provision of Section 4 (a) of the Act prescribes punishment for touting or commit any malpractice. According to Section 2 (f) of the Act, touting includes enticing, misguiding or coercing the tourists for accommodation, sight seeing etc. If anyone loiters around the airports, as in the present case, with the intention of offering unsolicited service to the tourists and exhibits such conduct so as to manifest such intention will be deemed to have committed the act of touting if he has otherwise no reasonable explanation for visiting the said place.
13. It is well settled that the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved in the entirety merely because all the witnesses are official witnesses and no independent witness could be produced by the prosecution. Each case has to be determined on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances. Reliance in that regard is laid upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tahir Vs. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338, wherein it has been observed as hereinunder:
"6. Mr. D. D. Thakur, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that PW4 to PW7 on whose evidence the conviction has been recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any independent witness to corroborate them, it was not safe to rely upon their testimony to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We cannot agree. In our opinion no. infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no. rule of law or evidence which lays State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.5/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.05.24 16:36:57 +0530 down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
14. In the case at hand, both PW2 HC Pradeep and PW3 SI Naveen have corroborated each other in material facts. Their testimonies cannot be doubted solely on the ground that no independent witness came forward to take part in the proceedings. The place of incident i.e. the Domestic Airport is such that the passengers or the tourists may be reasonably assumed to exhibit such kind of conduct as mostly they are in a hurry to catch their flight or head back towards their respective places after journey. There is also no bar on lodging the complaint by a police official as such. Moreover, the Court may draw the presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the acts done by the police officials in discharge of their duties have been properly done in accordance with law, unless the said presumption is rebutted by the contesting party.
15. However, in the present case, there isn't sufficient material to rebut the aforesaid presumption. Although the production of CCTV footage would have operated as corroborative evidence, nevertheless, the failure to do so by the prosecution is not fatal as the ocular evidence has remained entrenched. The witnesses have remained unshaken on material facts and nothing substantial could be elicited in the crossexamination of PW2 HC Pradeep and PW3 SI Naveen. The accused has admitted that he was present at the spot and there is no explanation tendered by him as to why he would be falsely implicated. This fact goes on to State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.6/7 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2022.05.24 16:37:09 +0530 only reinforce the case of prosecution.
16. Therefore, the court finds the evidence of prosecution witnesses completely reliable. Consequently, it is reflected from the prosecution evidence that the accused was found to be indulging in the act of touting the tourists coming out of the Arrival Hall on 13.02.2020 at 01:15 am, as he was enticing them to provide cheap hotels and taxi services. The offending act of accused is clearly covered under Section 4 (a) of the Act.
17. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused. Resultantly, the accused Rajesh Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh R/o 15/250, Kalyanpuri East, New Delhi is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4(a) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010.
18. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
19. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed by BHARTI Pronounced in open court in the presence BHARTI GARG GARG Date: 2022.05.24 of accused on 24.05.2022. 16:37:16 +0530 (Bharti Garg) MM09/South West District Dwarka Court/New Delhi/24.05.2022
It is certified that this judgment contains seven pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed BHARTI by BHARTI GARG GARG Date: 2022.05.24 16:37:22 +0530 (Bharti Garg) MM09/South West District Dwarka Court/New Delhi/24.05.2022 State Vs. Rajesh Singh CNR no. DLSW020088192021 Page no.7/7