Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitender Singh on 18 December, 2015
State Vs. Jitender Singh
FIR No:- 78/14
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF Dr. PANKAJ SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the Judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 78/14
PS Domestic Airport
U/S : 4 DPT & M Act
State V/s Jitender Singh
C/No. 58/02
U.ID No. 02405R0232842014
Date of Institution: 01.10.2014
Name of the Complainant HC Ajit Singh
No. 108/A,
PS Domestic Airport
New Delhi.
Name and address of accused Jitender Singh
S/o Sh. Shiv Singh
r/o H. No. 128, BlockG,
Gali No.4,
Sharddanand Colony,
near Jahangirpuri,
New Delhi.
Charge framed against accused U/S 4 DPTM Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date on which reserved for judgment 18.12.2015
Date for announcing the orders 18.12.2015
C/No. 58/02 Page No. 1 of 10
U.ID No. 02405R0232842014
State Vs. Jitender Singh
FIR No:- 78/14
PS Domestic Airport
JUDGMENT:
1. Notice u/s 4 DPTM Act was framed on 19.12.2014 against accused Jitender Singh that "on 21.09.2014, outside terminal 1B of Domestic Airport you were offering services to passengers/tourist by enticing them for cheap transportation/accommodation services and also causing annoyance to them and thereby the accused 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".
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution cited 03 witnesses in the list of witnesses and all were examined. PE stood closed on 10.12.2015. 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 Jogender Singh was the Duty Officer at the relevant date and time who proved the present FIR Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka.
4. PW2 :ASI Ajit Singh deposed that on 21.09.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as HC and was on anti touting duty at terminal 1, Domestic Airport. At about 9.10AM, one person was C/No. 58/02 Page No. 2 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport indulging in touting activities. He had requested him not to indulge in touting as same was an offence but he did not pay any heed to his request. Then, he informed the Duty Officer in the PS at about 9.30AM. SI Mukesh Baliyan came at the spot at terminal 1B and he told him about that person who was still indulging in touting. SI Mukesh Baliyan also requested him not to do so and that person left that place and after going at some distance he again started alluring the passengers coming out from the arrival hall for providing them cheap taxi service and hotels. Thereafter, he was apprehended and on inquiry his name was revealed as Jitender Singh s/o Sh. Shiv Singh. Passengers were requested to give their complaints and to join in the proceedings but none agreed. Thereafter, site plan mark was prepared by SI Mukesh Baliyan and he prepared tehrir and sent him(PW2) to the PS for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got the present case registered through DO and returned back to the spot with original tehrir and computerised copy of FIR. He handed over the same to SI Mukesh Baliyan. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and personal search of accused was carried out vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Accused was released on bail. His statement was recorded by the IO SI Mukesh Baliyan.
In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he never made any call and no DD entry was recorded in this regard. He affirmed that site plan does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were carried out in the PS. C/No. 58/02 Page No. 3 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport
5. PW3 SI Mukesh Baliyan deposed that on 21.09.2014, he was posted at PS Domestic Airport as SI. On that day, on the receipt of DD No. 15 Ex.PW3/A regarding touting, from HC Ajit Singh, he went to the spot at terminal 1B, where HC Ajit met and informed about the person who was indulging in touting. He also requested him not to do so and that person left that place and after going at some distance he again started alluring the passengers coming out from the arrival hall for providing them cheap taxi service and hotels. Thereafter, apprehended the accused and on inquiry his name was revealed as Jitender Singh. Thereafter, passengers were requested to give their complaints and to join in the proceedings but none agreed. Thereafter, he prepared tehrirEx.PW3/B and sent HC Ajit to the PS for registration of FIR. HC Ajit Singh went to PS and got the present case registered through DO and returned back to the spot with original tehrir and computerised copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A a and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/C. Accused was released on bail. He recorded statement of HC Ajit Singh. After completion of investigation, he prepared challan and filed the same in the Court through concerned SHO.
In cross examination, he denied that no public person was asked to join the investigation. He denied the suggestion that that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were carried out in the PS. C/No. 58/02 Page No. 4 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport Statement of accused and defence
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded on 18.12.2015. 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
7. 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 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.
C/No. 58/02 Page No. 5 of 10U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport
8. 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.
9. 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 TSR driver and was soliciting and alluring the passengers outside the arrival hall by touching their luggage and as per the prosecution case accused was alluring the passengers outside arrival hall by touching their luggage by saying that he will ferry them in a cheap rate despite the passenger was not interested going with him. 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.
10. 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 C/No. 58/02 Page No. 6 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport hands over him the investigation of the case and accordingly, the contention put forth on behalf of accused is dismissed.
11. 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.
12. 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 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 C/No. 58/02 Page No. 7 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport become tainted by reason of absence of any public person as witness.
13. 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 while he was busy in apprehending the accused, the passengers took some other cab and left the spot. 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.
14. 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 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.
C/No. 58/02 Page No. 8 of 10U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport
15. It is in common knowledge of everyone that in airport outside arrival hall several unscrupulous TSR and 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
16. 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 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 C/No. 58/02 Page No. 9 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014 State Vs. Jitender Singh FIR No:- 78/14 PS Domestic Airport 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 (Dr. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 18th day of December, 2015 MM 01: Dwarka : Delhi C/No. 58/02 Page No. 10 of 10 U.ID No. 02405R0232842014