Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar on 7 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 10472014
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Uttam Nagar
State Vs. Anil Kumar
Case ID No. 667442016
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 667442016
2. Date of commission of offence 11.09.2014
3. Name of complainant HC Ajeet Singh
4. Name of accused Anil Kumar
S/o. Sh. Ajit Singh Dagar, R/o; C2,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 3 DPDP Act
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 07.07.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 11.09.2014, at about 9.30 pm, Transformer on main Nazafgarh Road, Delhi, accused defaced the public property by putting the board for advertisement on the electric transformer and thus defaced the public property and thereby committed an offence State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 1/7 punishable u/s. 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as DPDP Act).
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined one witness. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Ajeet Singh. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 09.11.2014, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as HC and on that day he alongwith Ct. Harish Kumar were on patrolling dut . While patrolling we reached at Dwarka Mode, in front of metro pillar No. 781 Nazafgarh Road, Delhi, and they noticed that a Board was put on the fencing of the electricity transformer. He further deposed that the Phone Number was also mentioned on the same. He further deposed that on seeing this, he clicked the photographs of said State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 2/7 Board. Then he asked many public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed. He further deposed that he had removed the same from the transformer and the same was taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he prepared rukka and it was handed over to Ct. Harish for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that on 31.5.2015 the accused was arrested in the present matter vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A and thereafter accused was released on bail. He correctly identified the accused.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has admitted the allegations however stated that he was not aware about the Defacement of Property Act. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of defacement of the public property by accused has been proved State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 3/7 beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused has stated that he was not aware about the Act and has stated that the said board was put just to bring to the notice of public about the advertisement.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 4/7 step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) PW1 has placed on record the photograph of the board. The photograph clearly reveals that the board was put on the electric transformer. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1, who is the material witnesses show that the accused had committed the offence of defacement of the public property by putting the board on the electric transformer. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of board in his statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 is reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: On 09.11.2014, I was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as HC and on that day I alongwith Ct.
Harish Kumar were on patrolling dut . While patrolling we reached at Dwarka Mode, in front of metro pillar No. 781 Nazafgarh Road, Delhi, and we noticed that a Board was put on the fencing of the electricity transformer. The Phone Number was also mentioned on the same. On seeing this, I clicked the photographs of said Board. Then I asked many public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed. Thereafter I had removed the same from the transformer and the same was taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I prepared rukka and it was handed over to Ct. Harish for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 5/7 to me.
Thereafter, on 31.5.2015 the accused was arrested in the present matter vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B bearing my signatures at point A and thereafter accused was released on bail. I can identify the said Board if shown to me. Accused is present in the court today(correctly identified). ".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW1, nothing has been made out in favour of the accused. There is nothing on record to doubt the same.
(vi) Reliance can be placed upon Anil Bhatia vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as WP(C) NO. 6711/2013 wherein the court held that "unregulated putting up of Poster/ Banners/ Hoarding on the public property lead to public nuisance and runs counter to public order within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution."
(vii) Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought on record that defacement of the public property was done by the accused. The cumulative and corroborating testimony of PW1 also clearly proves that the accused has committed the offence under Section 3 DPDP Act.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 6/7 discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.07.09
15:43:12 +0530
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 7th of July, 2018
(This judgment consists of 7 pages)
State Vs. Anil Kumar; FIR No. 1047-14; PS Uttam Nagar 7/7
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 10472014 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Anil Kumar Case ID No. 667442016 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Convict in person with counsel.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict that he is the sole bread earner for his family. It is further submitted that he is not a previous convict and he is first time offender. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act. No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as State Vs. Anil Kr.; FIR No. 1047-14; PS UN 2/2 stated by him. Convict is having a family to support. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict is facing trial for defacing the public property by putting board for advertisement and he is first time offender. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, convict is directed to deposit Rs. 1000/ as the cost of the proceedings of the court. The same has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH
i.e. the 7th July , 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Anil Kr.; FIR No. 1047-14; PS UN 2/2
State Vs. Anil Kr.; FIR No. 1047-14; PS UN 2/2