Delhi District Court
State vs Inderjeet Singh on 30 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 525/21
PS VIKAS PURI
State Vs. INDERJEET
CIS No. : 1098/22
Date of institution of the case : 05.02.2022
Name of the complainant : HC Vijay Pal
Name of accused and address : Inderjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh.
H. No.216, 2nd Floor,
PS Vikaspuri, West, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 3 DPDP Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date on which judgment reserved : 22.07.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 30.07.2024
- :: JUDGMENT :: -
1.Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present case u/s 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as DPDP Act) filed by prosecution against the accused. Digitally
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on signed by RAJAT RAJAT Date:
GOYAL GOYAL 2024.07.31 14:55:21 +0530 18.08.2021, at around 09:30 PM, near Oxford School, Vikas Puri, New State Vs. Inderjeet Singh FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 1 of 7 Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, HC Vijay Pal and Ct. Rajesh Kumar found one banner/poster in Punjabi language affixed on one electric pole, with the description "Sewa Kiti Hai, Sewa Karde Rahenge, Balit, 22 August nu Balti nu Mohan Laao, Ward No.30, Vikaspuri, S. Inderjeet Singh Sodi, Mob. 9811174950". It is the case of prosecution that the said banner/poster was affixed by the accused and that by the said act, accused defaced public property. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO for offence punishable under section 3 of DPDP Act.
3. On the basis of material on record, cognizance in the present matter was taken vide order dated 08.04.2022 and accused was summoned to face trial. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge- sheet under section 207 Cr.P.C. was supplied to the accused.
4. After hearing arguments, notice for offence punishable u/s 3 of DPDP Act was framed against the accused on 17.11.2022 and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined two witnesses. PW-1 was complainant HC Vijay Pal, who stated that on 18.08.2021, Digitally signed by RAJAT RAJAT GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.07.31 14:55:31 +0530 he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Rajesh and that when they reached State Vs. Inderjeet Singh FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 2 of 7 near Oxford Public School, they saw one board/banner in Punjabi language affixed on one electric pole situated near the said school. He further stated that he detached the said banner from the pole, measured it and seized it vide memo Ex.PW1/C. It was further stated by PW-1 that he then prepared tehrir Ex.PW1/A and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Rajesh, who came back to the spot after registration of FIR. It was further stated by PW-1 that he arrested the accused on 05.09.2021 vide memo Ex.PW1/D, completed the investigation and filed the present charge-sheet. He also identified photographs of the said banner as Ex.P-1 (colly).
6. PW-2 was HC Rajesh Kumar, who testified along the lines of PW-1 HC Vijay Pal.
7. Admission denial of documents was conducted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. Accused admitted that he does not dispute the genuineness of following documents:-
i. Present FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex. A-1 (colly).
Digitally signed by RAJAT RAJAT GOYAL GOYAL Date:
8.
2024.07.31 14:57:11 +0530 No other witness was examined by prosecution and prosecution State Vs. Inderjeet Singh FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 3 of 7 evidence was closed vide order dated 04.04.2024.
9. Thereafter, statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating material that appeared in evidence against him was put to him, to which he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence and matter was, thus, fixed for final arguments.
10. Ld. counsel for accused has argued that there is no evidence against the accused and that he must be acquitted in this matter. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued that testimony of PWs has duly established the case of prosecution and that accused must be convicted in this matter.
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
12. Accused has been charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under section 3 of DPDP Act, which prescribes penalty for defacement of property in public view. In order to establish the said charge Digitally signed by RAJAT RAJAT GOYAL against the accused, it must be proved that:
GOYAL Date:
2024.07.31 14:56:54
(a) Accused had defaced some property.
+0530 State Vs. Inderjeet Singh FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 4 of 7
(b) That the said property was in public view.
(c) That the said defacement was not for the purpose of indicating name and address of the owner/occupier of the said property.
13. The term 'defacement' has been defined under section 2 (a) of DPDP Act, as including impairing the appearance/beauty. The term 'property' has been defined under section 2 (c) of DPDP Act as including any building, hut, structure, wall, tree, fence, post, pole or any other erection. The term 'writing' has been defined under section 2 (d) of DPDP Act as including printing, painting, decoration, lettering, ornamentation etc.
14. It has been alleged by the prosecution that accused had defaced one property which is in the nature of government electric pole by affixing one poster/banner on the same. Since the term 'writing' has been defined as including printing under section 2 (d) of DPDP Act, it is clear that affixing of printed banner/hoarding would amount to defacement of property for the purposes of section 3 of the said Act.
15. It must now be seen as to whether accused is responsible for the said defacement or not. It must be noted here that section 3 (2) of DPDP Act Digitally signed by prescribes the penalty where such defacement is carried out for the benefit of RAJAT RAJAT GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2024.07.31 14:56:41 +0530 some person, unless it is proved that the said defacement was without the said State Vs. Inderjeet Singh FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 5 of 7 person's consent or knowledge. It is not the case of prosecution that the defacement in question was carried out for the benefit of accused. Hence, accused cannot be held liable under section 3(2) of DPDP Act.
16. With respect to offence punishable under section 3(1) of DPDP Act, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the board/hoarding in question was affixed by the accused. However, prosecution has neither cited nor examined any witness to prove the said allegation. Entire prosecution case is absolutely silent as to identity of the person who had affixed the board in question on the electric pole. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that the banner/board in question was affixed by the accused. Merely because photograph and name of the accused was mentioned on the said board, it cannot be presumed that the said board was affixed by or at the behest of accused.
17. It must also be noted here that no investigation has been carried out with respect to the printing press where the said board was printed/made. Thus, there is absolutely nothing to connect the accused to affixation of the board/banner/hoarding in question. Hence, it cannot be said that it was the Digitally accused who had affixed the board in question and defaced the property in signed by RAJAT RAJAT GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.07.31 14:56:25 public view.
+0530 State Vs. Inderjeet Singh FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 6 of 7
18. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Inderjeet Singh is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under section 3 of DPDP Act.
19. Copy of this judgment be provided to both the sides, free of cost.
Pronounced in the open Digitally
signed by
court on 30.07.2024. RAJAT RAJAT
Date:
GOYAL
GOYAL 14:56:04
2024.07.31
+0530
(RAJAT GOYAL)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
South West District, Dwarka Courts
New Delhi/30.07.2024
State Vs. Inderjeet Singh
FIR No.525 of 2021, PS Vikaspuri Page No. 7 of 7