Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Yadav on 13 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE VS. RAVI YADAV
FIR NO. 101/2018
PS: MAURICE NAGAR
U/S: 3 DPDP Act
JUDGMENT
New Case No. : 15682/2018
CNR No. : DLCT020364542018
Date of commission of offence : 20.08.2018
Date of institution of the case : 28.11.2018
Name of the complainant : HC Anand Kumar, PS
Maurice Nagar, Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Ravi Yadav
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
Yadav
R/o 222, Satya Niketan
Moti Bagh, Delhi110021.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 3 DPDP Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment: 13.04.2022
Date of judgment : 13.04.2022
FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 1/9
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused pursuant to charge sheet filed by P.S. Maurice Nagar U/s 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 101/2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2018, at about 2.00 PM, on footpath, Vishwavidhalaya, Metro Station, Near Gate No. 4, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Maurice Nagar, Delhi, accused got some posters put up in his name on the footpath, which was not for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner/ occupier of such property, but to gain personal benefit/ advertisement. The posters were noticed by the complainant alongwith Ct. Pratap Singh, police officials during patrolling and the present FIR was registered at instance of the complainant.
3. Thereafter, investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed against the accused. The accused appeared before the Court and on 18.09.2019, notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 was served upon his, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined one witness.
FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 2/95. PW1/ Ct. Pratap Singh has deposed that on 20.08.2018, he alongwith HC Anand were on patrolling duty in the area of Police Station Maurice Nagar. At about 2.00 PM when they reached at the bus stop of Vishwavidhalaya Metro Station, they had seen one poster was affixed on the footpath wherein it was written "JOIN ABVP RAVI YADAV". IO clicked the photograph from his mobile phone. The poster was removed from there. IO prepared the rukka. Same was handed over to him which is Ex. PW1/A for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR was got registered which is Ex. PW1/B. IO prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW1/C. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D. Disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW1/E. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. During crossexamination, it is admitted by PW1 that he had not seen the accused while affixing the poster over there. He stated that he does not know whether IO investigated the fact from where the said posters got published. He denied that accused has nothing to do with the said posters.
6. Since all the relevant/ material witnesses have been examined, hence prosecution evidence stands closed.
THE DEFENCE :
7. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he had not committed any offence and had no concern with the said poster. He FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 3/9 has been falsely implicated in the present case and this case was falsely planted upon him. He however did not lead any evidence in defence.
THE ARGUMENTS:
9. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the witness has deposed against him and that accused has failed to show that he had no concern with the poster.
10. Per contra, Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that he has no concern with the poster, that he never got the same affixed and that he never defaced any property. He submits that the investigation is incomplete and improper as there is nothing to connect him with the offence.
THE FINDINGS:
Offence U/s 3 DPDP Act:
11. The undersigned has heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused and have also perused the material available on record.
12. Section 3(1) of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 provides that : "Penalty for defacement of property: FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 4/9 (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) XXX (3) XXX
13. Though in the present matter poster bearing writing "JOIN ABVP RAVI YADAV" was found affixed on the footpath, however due to the following reasons the accused deserves acquittal in the present matter :
(i) In the present matter, complaint was made by HC Anand Kumar. After registration of FIR he was the one who seized the poster, prepared the site plan. Thus, after registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was marked to the same police official who was the complainant. Thus, in the present matter complainant and IO was the same person. It is well settled law that complainant should not be the investigating officer in the case so as to rule out any ill−will or bias against the accused. The mindset of the complainant ordinarily is holding a grievance against somebody whereas the mandate of the investigating officer is to ascertain the FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 5/9 truth. Therefore, in order to allay any fear of bias or ill−will, it is in the fitness of things that the complainant and the IO should not be the same person which is not the case before the Court. Reliance placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, MANU SC/0857/2018.
(ii) No independent witness was joined in the investigation by the IO. PW1 has not explained in his testimony as to why the public witness was not joined in the investigation. It was within the reach of the IO to examine the independent witness to prima facie satisfy that the poster was affixed on the spot. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the alleged poster was affixed by the accused or with his authority.
(iii) The PW1 who had allegedly visited the spot examined by the prosecution had not stated that he had seen anybody or the accused while affixing the said poster at the spot and he also could not say as to who affixed the poster at the spot. He did not come across any witness who might have seen any person affixing the poster at the spot.
(iv) In the present matter, the allegation against the accused is that poster bearing writing "JOIN ABVP RAVI YADAV" was found affixed on the footpath. Now it has to be seen whether affixing posters would amount to an offence U/s 3 of DPDP Act, or not. Prior to enactment of DPDP Act, West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 6/9 Property Act, 1976 was prevalent in Delhi. Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is same to same as Section 3 of DPDP Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, is reproduced here which provides 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."
In a case titled as "T.S Marwah & Ors Vs. State", 2008(4) JCC 2561 it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "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 defacement for the purpose of prosecution as is done by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material".
The question for determination in the present case is whether the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment and whether the aforementioned judgment also applicable to offence under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
Provisions of Section 3 of DPDP Act and Section 3 of FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 7/9 the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act are similar to each other and therefore the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of T.S Marwah Vs. State would also be applicable to the provision of Section 3 of DPDP Act.
In these circumstances, affixing of poster on the foopath having the name of the accused on it would not amount to an offence U/s 3 of DPDP Act.
14. In view of the abovestated circumstances, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
16. In the present matter, in view of the abovestated discussions, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused to be acquitted in the present case.
FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 8/9Therefore, accused Ravi Yadav is hereby acquitted from charge leveled against him in the present matter. Requirements of Section 437A Cr.P.C have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed GAJENDER by GAJENDER SINGH SINGH NAGAR NAGAR Date: 2022.04.13 17:49:47 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 13.04.2022 CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI Containing 9 pages all signed by the presiding officer.Digitally signed by GAJENDER GAJENDER SINGH SINGH NAGAR Date: 2022.04.13 NAGAR 17:50:00 +0530 (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No. 101/2018, PS Maurice Nagar State Vs. Ravi Yadav Page 9/9