Delhi District Court
State vs Savinder Mandal on 10 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. SAVINDRA MANDAL
FIR NO. 315 /2023
PS (AMAR COLONY)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 9269/2023 institution Date of commission of offence 04.08.2023. Name of the complainant HC Bhoor Singh. Name of the accused Savindra Mandal. Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order Not reserved. Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 10.12.2024.
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 04:00 PM, infront of House No. B-192/1, East of Kailash, Near Park, Main Road, Amar Colony, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Amar Colony, one board / banner containing words "SS Fitness Studio Training Cross-fit Zumba, Yoga, Dance, Kids WKT SS Fit Studio - C-21, East of Kailash 9625101059" 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.FIR No.315/2023 State Vs. Savindra Mandal Page No. 1/5
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 06.11.2023 and cognizance was taken on the same day. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 04.01.2024 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to accused on 10.04.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before recording of prosecution evidence, accused admitted copy of FIR and CAF report without admitting contents thereof. To prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW1 is Constable Rajesh Meena, who deposed that on 04.08.2023 at about 04:00 PM, while on patrolling duty with IO / HC Bhoor Singh, they reached infrot of House No. B-192 / 1, East of Kailash, Near Park, Main Road and noticed an advertisement board / banner containing the words "SS Fitness Studio Training Cross-fit Zumba Yoga Dance Kids WKT SS Fit Studio C-21, East of Kailash Phone Number 9625101059" and photograph of Sonu Mandal at the abovesaid place, which was photographed by IO and then removed from the spot. HC Bhoor Singh then put the banner in a white colour plastic sack and then tied the mouth of the same using doctor's tape and sealed the same with the seal of "BS". HC Bhoor Singh then seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. After using the seal, the same was handed over by the IO to him vide seal handing over memo vide Ex.PW1/B. HC Bhoor Singh then prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him to get the FIR registered at the PS. Thereafter, he went to the PS with rukka and got the present FIR registered. Thereafter, he came back to the spot at about 05:35 PM and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. During the course of investigation, IO / HC Bhoor Singh prepared the site plan at the spot vide Ex.PW1/C. They then made efforts to trace the accused near the spot but in vain. They then returned to FIR No.315/2023 State Vs. Savindra Mandal Page No. 2/5 the Police Station along with case property and IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. IO also recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC and placed the same on record. He correctly identified the case property from the photographs which are on judicial record vide Ex.P-1(colly). Thereafter, he was duly cross-examined and discharged.
5. PW2 is HC Bhoor Singh, who is complainant as well as Investigating Officer in the present matter. He deposed that he was on patrolling duty with PW1 on 04.08.2023 and during patrolling duty, they reached infront of House No. B-192 / 1, East of Kailash, near Park, Main Road and noticed an advertisement board / banner containing above said words and your photograph. He then took the photographs of the said board using his mobile phone and then removed the same from the pole and measured it. Thereafter, he put the banner in a white colour plastic sack and tied the mouth using doctor's tape and sealed the same with the seal of "BS". He then seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. After using the seal, he handed over the same to Constable Rajesh vide seal handing over memo Ex.PW1/B. He then prepared the rukka Ex.PW2/A and sent PW1 to PS for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, PW1 came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/C and then tried to trace the accused near the spot. Therafter, they returned to the police station along with case property and he deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He then recorded statement of witness / Constable Rajesh u/s 161 CrPC and placed the same on record. During further course of investigation, he served notice to Jio official to provide CAF of the mobile number which was mentioned on the board vide Ex.PW2/B. He then contacted on the said mobile number and it was responded by accused. He asked him to come to the police station and join FIR No.315/2023 State Vs. Savindra Mandal Page No. 3/5 the investigation in the present matter upon which accused reached at the police station and met him. He then served notice u/s 41A CrPC upon accused vide Ex.PW2/C and bound down him in the present matter. After due interrogation, he released the accused vide pabandinama Ex.PW2/D. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court. He identified the accused, case property and its photograph. Photograph of the case property is Ex.P-1 and case property is Ex.P-2. Thereafter, he was duly cross-examined and discharged.
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed.
7. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 26.10.2024, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. However, he declined to lead any defence evidence.
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;FIR No.315/2023 State Vs. Savindra Mandal Page No. 4/5
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 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 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 FIR No.315/2023 State Vs. Savindra Mandal Page No. 5/5 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 Savindra Mandal is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 10.12.2024) (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No.315/2023 State Vs. Savindra Mandal Page No. 6/5