Delhi District Court
State vs Asib Hussian on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. ASIB HUSSAIN
FIR NO. 520/2023
PS (LAJPAT NAGAR)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 430/2024 institution 11.01.2024.
Date of commission of offence 01.05.2024.
Name of the complainant HC SHARWAN KUMAR Name of the accused ASIB HUSSAIN Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 1411.2025. Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 19.12.2025.
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 04.08.2023, at about 03:20 P.M., infront of E-46-E, Veer Savarkar Road, Roxy Chowk, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Lajpat Nagar one board was found affixed on electricity pole containing the words "Grace Spa Salon, E-46, 1st Floor Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024" was 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 Digitally signed by 11.01.2024 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Copy of charge sheet NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.19 was supplied to accused on 01.05.2024 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 16:59:15 +0530 FIR No. 520/2023 State Vs. Asib Hussain Page No. 1/5 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 HC Sharwan, who is complainant as well as Investigating Officer in the present matter, on 04.08.2023, he was posted as HC at PS Lajpat Nagar. On that day, at around 03:20 P.M., he along with HC Mukesh were on patrolling duty and when they reached at E Block, Veer Savarkar Marg, New Delhi, they noticed one board hanging on the electricity pole containing the words "Grace Spa Salon" and along with mobile numbers and some other words. He had taken the photographs of the same using his mobile phone and and then removed the same from the pole. He then seized it vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW1/B and handed over the same to HC Mukesh for registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, HC Mukesh returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B of IEA to him as the investigation of the case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, he had prepared site plan at the spot vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he called on the mobile number mentioned on the board and it was not responded. Thereafter, they visited the address mentioned on the board and they got the personal mobile number of the owner. Thereafter, they called on the number and asked the accused to come at the spot. He served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/D upon the accused. After that during investigation he bound down the accused vide Pabandinama as Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, they along with case property returned to PS and he deposited the same in Malkhana. He then recorded the statement of HC Mukesh u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. After the completion the investigation, he prepared Digitally signed by NUPUR the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court. He has correctly NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.19 16:59:25 identified the accused and the photographs of the case property which are on +0530 FIR No. 520/2023 State Vs. Asib Hussain Page No. 2/5 judicial record as Ex. P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
5. PW2 HC Mukesh, he deposed that on 04.08.2023, he was posted as HC at PS Lajpat Nagar. On that day, at around 03:20 P.M., he along with HC Sharwan were on patrolling duty and when they reached at E Block, Veer Savarkar Marg, New Delhi, they noticed one board hanging on the electricity pole containing the words "Grace Spa Salon" and along with mobile numbers and some other words. HC Sharwan had taken the photographs of the same using his mobile phone and and then removed the same from the pole. HC Sharwan then seized it vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, HC Sharwan prepared the rukka Ex.PW1/B and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR at PS. He then left the spot and reached at the PS Lajpat Nagar and got the present FIR registered through the then DO. After the registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B of IEA to HC Sharwan as the investigation of the case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, HC Sharwan had prepared site plan at the spot vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, they visited the address mentioned on the board and they got the personal mobile number of the owner. Thereafter, HC Sharwan called on the number and asked the accused to come at the spot. Thereafter, HC Sharwan served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/D upon the accused.
After that during investigation HC Sharwan bound down the accused vide Pabandinama as Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, they along with case property returned to PS and HC Sharwan deposited the same in Malkhana. HC Sharwan then recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. He has correctly identified the accused and the photographs of the case property which are on judicial record as Ex. P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA on 18.10.2025. GUPTA Date:
2025.12.19 16:59:39 +0530
7. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on FIR No. 520/2023 State Vs. Asib Hussain Page No. 3/5 14.11.2025, 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.
8. Final arguments were advanced at length by both the parties.
9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
10. 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 other material;
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.
11. 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.
12. 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 Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA place. Nothing has been produced before court to state that the said board was GUPTA Date:
2025.12.19 16:59:49 +0530 installed/affixed by the accused himself or at his instance or for his benefit.FIR No. 520/2023 State Vs. Asib Hussain Page No. 4/5
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 out any benefit accrued to accused as per Section 3(2) DPDP Act.
13. 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 Asib Hussain is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 19.12.2025).
Digitally signed by NUPURNUPUR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.12.19 16:59:58 +0530 (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 520/2023 State Vs. Asib Hussain Page No. 5/5