Delhi District Court
State vs Jagbir Singh on 3 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH ROHIT GULIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the Judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 28/15
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/s Jagbir Singh
U.ID No. 02405R086182015
Date of Institution: 22.07.2015
Name of the Complainant ASI Ishwar Singh,
PS Domestic
Airport, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused Jagbir Singh,
S/oSh.Satbir Singh,
R/o 8/17,
Mehram Nagar,
Delhi Cantt., Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPT & MT
Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date on which reserved for judgment 03.08.2016
Date for announcing the orders 03.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Notice u/s 4 DPTM Act was framed on 16.09.2015 against State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 1 of 10 accused Jagbir Singh that "on 22.03.2015 at about 12:15 pm outside pickup zone, beneath flyover, Domestic Airport, Delhi you were trying to allure the passengers on pretext that you will provide cheap taxi and purchasing and provide room in hotel on low fare in your car bearing number DL2C Z 8703 Esteem and harassing them and thereby 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".
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 05 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 27.05.2016. 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 Ved Prakash proved the entry no. 396 as Ex.PW1/A vide which ASI Ishwar Singh had deposited one vehicle bearing number DL2C Z 8703 in the malkhanna and same was released on superdari. He was crossexamined as NIL by accused.
4. PW2 HC Jogender Singh was the Duty Officer at the relevant time and he proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B. He was crossexamined by Ld. LAC for accused.
5. PW3 SI Krishan Pal deposed that on the night of State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 2 of 10 21/22.03.2015, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as SI. On that day, he along with HC Ved Prakash were on duty from 7 pm to 8 am at arrival hall. At around 12:15 am, ASI Ishwar Singh came at the arrival hall while patrolling. Thereafter, they went towards pickup zone for patrolling and when they reached below the flyover at pickup zone, they saw one boy was indulging in touting and they requested him not to indulge in touting. He did not pay any heed to our request and continued in his conduct. He further deposed that they apprehended him. His name, on inquiry, was revealed as Jagbir Singh. His car bearing no. DL2C Z 8703 (Esteem car) was seized by ASI Ishwar Singh through seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. ASI Ishwar Singh prepared rukka and sent HC Ved Prakash with rukka to PS for registration of case. After registration of case, HC Ved Prakash came back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to ASI Ishwar Singh. ASI Ishwar Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. He was released on bail. Car of the accused was taken to PS. He was crossexamined by Ld. LAC for accused.
6. PW4 HC Ved Prakash deposed that on the night of 21/22.03.2015, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as HC. On that day, he along with SI Krishan Pal were on duty from 7 pm to 8 am at arrival hall. At around 12:15 am, ASI Ishwar Singh came at the arrival hall while patrolling. Thereafter, they went towards pickup zone for patrolling and when they reached below the flyover at pickup zone, they saw one boy was indulging in touting and they requested him not to State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 3 of 10 indulge in touting. He did not pay any heed to our request and continued in his conduct. He further deposed that they apprehended him. His name, on inquiry, was revealed as Jagbir Singh. His car bearing no. DL2C Z 8703 (Esteem car) was seized by ASI Ishwar Singh through seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. ASI Ishwar Singh prepared rukka and sent him with rukka to PS for registration of case. After registration of case, he came back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to ASI Ishwar Singh. ASI Ishwar Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. He was released on bail. Car of the accused was taken to PS. He was crossexamined by Ld. LAC for accused.
7. PW5 ASI Ishwar Singh deposed that on the night of 21/22.03.2015, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as ASI. On that day, he was on anti touting duty and at around 12:10 am, he reached at the arrival hall while patrolling where SI Krishan pal & HC Ved Prakash met him who were on duty there. Thereafter, they went towards pickup zone for patrolling. When they reached below the flyover at pickup zone, they saw one boy was indulging in touting and was directing the passengers towards Esteem car bearing no DL 2CZ 8703. They requested him not to indulge in touting. He did not pay any heed to their request and continued in his conduct. They apprehended him. His name, on inquiry, was revealed as Jagbir Singh. He requested some passengers to join the investigation and give complaint against accused but none agreed. He prepared rukka Ex PW5/A and sent HC Ved Prakash with rukka to PS for registration of case. After registration of case, HC Ved State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 4 of 10 Prakash came back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to me. He seized car bearing no. DL2C Z 8703 (Esteem car) through seizure memo already Ex.PW3/A. He prepared site plan Ex PW5/B. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B. He was released on bail. Car of the accused was taken to PS and was deposited in the malkhana. He recorded the statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he prepared challan and filed it in the court. He was crossexamined by Ld. LAC for accused.
Statement of accused and defence
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded on 18.05.2016. 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
9. 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 State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 5 of 10 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 was alluring or soliciting the passengers. It is also submitted that the accused did not annoy any passenger.
10. 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.
11. 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 driver and was soliciting and alluring the passengers at the arrival hall by alluring the passengers and as per the prosecution case accused was alluring the passengers outside at hall by rushing after passengers and was trying to pick their luggages. 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.
State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 6 of 10
12. With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused that IO and the complainant is same person, to this argument, it is 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 is not very uncommon that Public persons are generally reluctant to join as a witness and appear before the State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 7 of 10 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.
15. 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 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.
16. 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 State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 8 of 10 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.
17. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several unscrupulous 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 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
18. 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 State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 9 of 10 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 (ROHIT GULIA) on this 03rd day of August 2016 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport Page No. 10 of 10