Delhi District Court
State vs Anuj Sharma on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI
DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Shriya Agrawal
State Vs. Anuj Sharma
FIR No. 430/2022
Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North)
Under Section: 3 of DPDP Act
Date of institution : 20.01.2023
Date of reserving : 20.09.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.09.2025
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
a) Serial number of the case : 741/2023
b) Date of commission of : 15.11.2022 offence
c) Name of the complainant : ASI Sumit Kumar
d) Name, parentage and : Anuj Sharma s/o Ravinder Kumar address of the accused Sharma r/o Dairy No. 91, Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj North, South West Delhi
e) Offence complained of : Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 1/9 of Defacement of Property Act, 2007
f) Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of final order : 20.09.2025
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
1. The present case has arisen out of FIR No. 741/2023 registered on 15.11.2022 at Vasant Kunj North on the complaint of ASI Sumit Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property, Act (hereafter referred to as 'DPDP Act').
2. The allegations as per the FIR are that on 15.11.2022, at about 6:15 PM, when the Complainant along with HC Anil Kumar were on patrolling duty in the area and reached near Sai Temple Harijan Basti Vasant Kunj, they noticed that on an electricity pole, a flex board (measuring 4 X 2.5 feet) was put up, bearing words " Dilli ke vikaas ki badhegi raftaar jab sath kaam karegi MCD aur Modi Sarkar aapka Anuj Sharma Upadhyaksh- Vasant Kunj 156" defacing the public property/electricity pole, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DPDP Act.
State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 2/9COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DPDP Act. Cognizance was taken and the Accused was summoned vide Order dated 20.1.2023. Upon compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Notice was framed for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the DPDP Act vide Order dated 14.05.2024, to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and was put to trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. The Prosecution has cited a total of four witnesses.
5. The first witness to depose was PW1/SI Rajpal Singh, who while being examined as PW1 stated that on 15.11.2022, he was deputed to perform the duty of duty officer from 4:00 PM till 12 midnight. On that day, at about 6:55 PM, HC Anil came to the Police Station with the rukka sent by ASI Sumit. On the basis of the rukka, the FIR was registered. The witness proved the FIR (Ex PW1/A) and the certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act [Ex PW1/B] along with endorsement of the IO on the rukka (Ex PW1/C). Despite opportunity, the witness was not cross examined and stood discharged.
6. The next witness examined was ASI Sumit Kumar, who deposed as PW2 and stated that on 15.11.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS Vasant Kunj North, when he along with HC Anil Kumar were patrolling in the area of Harijan Basti near Sai Mandir, during which at around 6:15 PM, when they reached there the witness stated that he saw a flex board measuring 4 x 2.5 feet installed on a public electricity pole. On further scrutiny, the said board was found with a printed lotus mark State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 3/9 and pictures of some political leaders. It bore the words " Delhi ke vikas ki badhegi raftaar jab kaam karegi MCD aur Modi Sarkar aapka Anuj Sharma Upadhyay, Vasant Kunj 156". Thereupon, photographs of the installed board were taken through mobile phone. The board upon removal was taken into police possession and seized vide memo (Ex PW2/A). The tehrir was labelled as Ex PW2/B which was handed over to HC Anil Kumar. The details of the FIR were mentioned on the seizure memo. The site plan was labelled as Ex PW2/C, on which the signatures of the deponent were taken at point A. Local inquiry about the Accused was conducted. Thereafter, they returned to PS Vasant Kunj, where the case property was deposited in the malkhana. The witness stated he recorded the statement of HC Anil and got relieved thereafter. On 25.11.2022, a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. (Ex PW 2/D) on which the witness identified his signatures was served upon the Accused. The latter was interrogated and his disclosure statement (Ex PW2/E) was recorded. A notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C was also served upon the Accused (Ex PW2/F) and the Accused was bound down. The case property produced by MHCM (Ex P1) and the Accused were correctly identified. Despite opportunity, the witness was not cross examined and stood discharged.
7. The third witness to depose was HC Anil Kumar, who in his testimony stated that on 15.11.2022, when he was posted at Vasant Kunj North, he was accompanied by ASI Sumit Kumar, who were on patrolling duty in the area of Harijan Basti near Sai Mandir Vasant Kunj Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Vasant Kunj. During the patrolling at around 6:15 PM, when they reached the spot, they saw a flex-board measuring 4 x 2.5 feet, installed on a public electricity pole. On State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 4/9 further scrutiny the board was found with printed lotus flower and pictures of political leaders bearing words " Delhi ke vikas ki badegi rafter jab kaam karegi MCD aur Modi Sarkaar aapka Anuj Sharma Upadhyay Vasant Kunj 156". The photograph of the flex board was taken by ASI Sumit Kumar through his mobile phone. Thereafter, the board was removed from the pole and taken into police possession and formally seized vide memo (Ex PW2/A). Tehrir / rukka (Ex PW2/B) was prepared by ASI Sumit Kumar and handed over to the deponent with directions to get the case registered at PS Vasant Kunj. The case was accordingly registered. Site plan Ex PW2/C was prepared by ASI Sumit Kumar, who also conducted local inquiry about the Accused, but none could be traced. The witness despite opportunity was not cross examined and stood discharged.
8. The Prosecution Evidence was closed thereafter at request.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C READ WITH SECTION 281 CR.P.C.
9. Thereafter, statement of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.PC was recorded, whereby he claimed false implication and stated that the poster was not affixed by him or under his instructions. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence. The opportunity for the same was closed.
10. Final arguments were heard. Record has been perused carefully.
SUBMISSIONS AND APPRAISAL
11. Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 provides that: -
State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 5/9"Penalty for defacement of property. - (1) Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Where any offence committed under sub-section (1) is for the benefit of some other person or a company or other body corporate or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), then, such other person and every president, chairman, director, partner, manager, secretary, agent or any other officer or persons concerned with the management thereof, as the case may be, shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence.
(3) The aforesaid penalties will be without prejudice to the provisions of section 425 and section 434 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the provisions of the relevant Municipal Acts."
12. Though in the present matter a flexboard mentioning words " Delhi ke vikas ki badegi rafter jab kaam karegi MCD aur Modi Sarkaar aapka Anuj Sharma Upadhyay Vasant Kunj 156" was found affixed on an electricity pole at the place in Harijan Basti, Near Sai Temple, at Vasant Kunj, it has to be decided as to whether all the ingredients as mentioned in Section 3 DPDP Act have been fulfilled or not.
State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 6/913. The Prosecution has relied upon photographs of spot. The same were allegedly taken through an electronic device i.e. mobile phone of PW2. It is pertinent to note that Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has not been placed on record. Digital photograph taken from an electronic device is a piece of electronic evidence and electronic evidence can only be proved by way of Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which has not been done in the present case for reasons best known to the police. Merely filing of photograph does not suffice and does not make it an admissible piece of evidence. It implies that the photograph of the spot remained unproved in the present case and cannot be relied upon in support of the case of Prosecution.
14. In the present matter, complaint was made by ASI Sumit Kumar and it was he who had taken the photograph and prepared the tehrir. He himself is also conspicuously the IO in this case.
15. Further, no independent witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. The witness examined by the Prosecution have not explained as to why no public witnesses were made to join in the investigation. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the said poster was affixed by the Accused or under his authority/instructions.
16. Apart from the aforesaid lacunae/omissions in the investigation, although the Prosecution claims that its case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of DPDP Act is duly established, the relevant law and its ingredients and application as per the settled judicial precedents will have to be borne in mind.
State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 7/917. Prior to enactment of DPDP Act, West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 was prevalent in Delhi. Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is same as Section 3 of DPDP Act. For the sake of clarity, Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, is reproduced here as under:-
"Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paints or any other material, except for the purpose of indicating the memo and address of the owner or occupies of such property, shall be punishable with punishment prescribed."
18. In a case titled as "T.S. Marwah & Others Vs. State", 2008 (4) JCC 2561, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi: -
"... ... ... mere putting of the banner will not be covered by Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. It is true Section 2 (aa) defines defacement which includes impairing or interfering with the appearance, beauty, damaging, distinguishing, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever, but Section 3(1) is not all embracing and it refers to only such type of defacements for the purpose of prosecution as is done by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material."
19. The present case relates to allegations of defacement by affixation of a poster on an electricity pole. The same is visible to be suspended on an electricity pole, there being no defacement per se in terms of the interpretation of the law as above discussed. There is also neither any State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 8/9 evidence gathered by the investigative agency to either prove the affixation of the said banner was done by the Accused or of it having been done under her instructions/authority. It is a settled principle of law that the Prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the onus is on the Prosecution alone, which it clearly has failed to discharge in this case.
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the afore-discussed reasons, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of DPDP Act against the Accused as per law. Resultantly, the accused is hereby acquitted in the present case.
21. Copy of this judgment pronounced and dictated in open court once readied shall be supplied to the accused free of cost against receiving.
Dictated and announced Digitally
signed by
in the open Court on 20.09.2025. SHRIYA
SHRIYA
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2025.09.23
19:18:45
+0530
(SHRIYA AGRAWAL)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
State Vs. Anuj Sharma FIR No. 430/2022 Police Station: Vasant Kunj (North) Page No. 9/9