Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitender Singh on 23 November, 2015
State Vs. Jitender Singh
FIR No:- 45/14
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. 45/14
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/s Jitender Singh
C/No. 41/02
U.ID No. 02405R0188122014
Date of Institution: 22.07.2014
Name of the Complainant SI R.L. Meena
No. D1322,
PS: Domestic Airport
Name and address of accused Jitender Singh
S/o Sh. Shiv Singh
r/o H. No. 128, BlockG,
Gali No.4,
Sharddanand Colony,
Jahangirpuri, New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date for announcing the orders 23.11.2015
C/No. 41/02 Page No. 1 of 11
U.ID No. 02405R0188122014
State Vs. Jitender Singh
FIR No:- 45/14
PS Domestic Airport
JUDGMENT:
1. Notice u/s 4 DPTM Act was framed on 10.10.2014 against accused Jitender Singh that "on 15.06.2014 at 1.15PM at Car Zone Parking, Terminal 1B, Domestic Airport, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport, accused was trying to allure the passengers by touching their luggage on pretext that he will provide cheap taxi and purchasing and provide room in hotel on low fare and thereby harassing them and thereby the accused committed 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 03 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 04.09.2015. Thereafter, statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded in which accused pleaded his innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused.
3. PW1: HC Rajender deposed that on 15.06.2014 he was the Duty Officer at the relevant date and time who proved the present FIR Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka.
C/No. 41/02 Page No. 2 of 11U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport
4. PW2 : Constable Jitender On 15.06.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as Constable and on that day, I was on duty with SI R.L. Meena from 08:00 am to 07:00 pm and at around 1:15pm, they were petrolling in the area and when they reached near the Car Zone parking, they saw one person whose name later on was revealed as Jitender Singh was alluring the passengers coming from the arrival hall on the pretext of providing cheap taxi service and cheap hotels and providing cheap shopping and there was hindrance to the passengers and passengers were getting annoyed. He was requested not to do so but he did not pay any heed to request and continued to do so. Thereafter, SI R.L. Meena apprehended him. Passengers were requested to join the proceedings but none agreed. Thereafter, SI R.L. Meena prepared the tehrir and he was sent to the PS for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the present case registered through DO and after registration of the case DO handed over to him original tehrir and computerized copy of the FIR and he reached at the spot and handed over the same to SI R.L. Meena. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW2/B. IO prepared the site plan and thereafter, they went to the PS. Accused was released on bail. His statement was recorded by the IO.
In cross examination he stated that he does not remember C/No. 41/02 Page No. 3 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport the DD number vide which they left the PS for petrolling. He affirmed that names of the passengers who refused to join the proceedings were not noted down by the IO. He denied the suggestion that the accused was alluring the passengers. He further denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were done in the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the IO during the petrolling. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot with the IO.
5. PW3 SI R.L. Meena deposed that on 15.06.2014, he was posted as SI in PS Domestic Airport. On that day, while he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Jitender at about 1.15pm outside car parking, Car zone terminal 1B Domestic Airport, accused whose name later revealed as Jitender Singh was alluring the passengers outside arrival hall and he was trying to touch the luggage of the passengers with the enticement of cheap hotels which was causing annoyance to the passengers and he was creating obstruction in the way of the passengers. He tried to stop accused in indulging in such activity but he persisted. He asked the passengers to join the proceedings and then he along with Ct. Jitender caught hold of him, the passengers refused to join proceedings telling their compulsions. Accused committed the offence of touting and thereafter tehrir Ex.PW1/B was prepared and sent the same with Ct. Jitender to PS for registration of FIR Ex.PW1/A and then proceeded with the C/No. 41/02 Page No. 4 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport investigation of this case after the same was assigned to him by concerned SHO. During investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and his Personal search conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, accused was released on bail and thereafter investigation was completed and accused was charge sheeted and kept in column no.11 and same was filed after forwarding it from concerned SHO and concerned ACP in Court. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
In cross examination, he affirmed that none of the passenger has given any written complaint to him. He further affirmed that he did not note down the address of any of the passenger as nobody told him. He further affirmed that there were so many other passengers present at the spot but they also refused to divulge their personal details. He further affirmed that CC TV cameras are installed at the spot. He further affirmed that he has not filed any report regarding the range of the cameras installed near the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused was not committing the offence for which he was charged by police. He further denied the suggestion that accused was indicted without any complaint from any passenger for the offence of touting. He further denied the suggestion that accused never indulged into touting outside arrival hall and created nuisance to the passengers. He further denied the suggestion that investigation was not carried in a fair and proper C/No. 41/02 Page No. 5 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport manner.
Statement of accused and defence
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded on 04.11.2015. When all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused separately, distinctly and specifically 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 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 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 C/No. 41/02 Page No. 6 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport was alluring or soliciting the passengers. It is also submitted that the accused did not annoy any passenger.
8. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the State that there is enough evidence against the accused as he tried to allure the passenger by touching their luggage and also worked in tandem to influence the passenger at the Airport, which caused annoyance to the passenger.
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 by touching their luggage and as per the prosecution case accused was alluring the passengers outside arrival hall by touching their luggage by saying that he will ferry them in a cheap rate despite the passenger was not interested going with him. PW3 is the IO of this case supported the prosecution version in entirety. These facts show that the accused was committing the offence of touting by indulging in illegal activity of enticing the passenger.
10. With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused that IO and the complainant is same person, to this argument, it is C/No. 41/02 Page No. 7 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport observed that when a crime is informed by any person who happens to be a police official of the same jurisdiction, he becomes complainant of the case and same does not preclude him from becoming the IO if the SHO hands over him the investigation of the case and accordingly, the contention put forth on behalf of accused is dismissed.
11. Also, the complainant in these cases are generally policemen as they 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 a witness as any other person and 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.
12. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused that despite arrival hall being crowded place, IO has not made any public person as witness, to this argument, it is observed that the testimony of police officials can be relied upon unless it suffers from doubts and failure to join any public person do not go to dismantle the case of prosecution entirely if the plausible explanation given by the police for not doing so, which in this case is given by the IO and accordingly, the argument is dismissed. Also, it C/No. 41/02 Page No. 8 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport 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.
13. With respect to further argument raised on behalf of accused that the passenger which was allegedly allured/annoyed by them was not examined on behalf of prosecution, to this argument, it is observed that the testimony of IO reveals that while he was busy in apprehending the accused, the passengers took some other cab and left the spot. It is quite likely that passengers are in hurry to reach their destination once they come out of their journey and they tend to ignore the disturbance created by unscrupulous persons who annoy them by forcing them to take their services and in these circumstances the passengers try to leave the place at the earliest to avoid further inconvenience. Even some time they were on the spot but they prefer not to become witness to legal proceedings as they fear that it may become onerous and expensive venture to them in future.
C/No. 41/02 Page No. 9 of 11U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport
14. With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused that CC TV footage of the spot has not been filed by the prosecution showing the presence of accused at the spot and indulging into touting, to this argument, it is observed that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is reliable, firm and unshaken by cross examination and accordingly, the same is relied upon by the Court and absence of CC TV footage is of no use when the testimony of witnesses is reliable and further the fact that no defence whatsoever has been led on behalf of accused.
15. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several unscrupulous TSR and cab drivers allure passengers of cheap hotel, low fare and other benefits and in most of the cases they misbehave with the passengers who do not fall prey to their allurements and generally passengers avoid police action against them to avoid their future trouble. It is also noteworthy that absence of adequate police officials outside arrival hall give encouragement to these unlawful activities by these law breakers. Also, these people annoy the passengers in front of their families and friends thereby reducing the joy of their journey and exposing them to all sort of dangers. These illegal activities also show lack of effective policing. In these circumstances, the role of police assumes significance and stern and preventive action is required for stopping these illegal activities going around sophisticated place like Airport C/No. 41/02 Page No. 10 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 45/14 PS Domestic Airport where people from all over the world come. Such incident of touting also diminishes the reputation and also brings bad name to our country in the world.
Conclusion
16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and 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 Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010. Nothing favourable could be brought by the counsel for the accused in defence 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 4 of Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 and the 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 this 23 day of November, 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi rd C/No. 41/02 Page No. 11 of 11 U.ID No. 02405R0188122014