Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep Gupta on 4 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 422018
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Moti Nagar
State Vs. Sandeep Gupta
Case ID No. 21732018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 21732018
2. Date of commission of offence 02.04.2018
3. Name of complainant Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav
4. Name of accused Sandeep Gupta
S/o. Sh. Ram Kishan Gupta
R/o; E110, H.No. 3, Shiva
Apartment, Sector15, Rohini, New
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 04.08.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 13.11.2017, in front of M/s. TNG Tele Services, Main Nazafgarh Road, Raja Garden, opposite Pillar No. 376, Delhi, accused defaced the public property/government land by putting the display board State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 1/9 for advertisement and thus defaced the public property and thereby committed an offence 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 two witnesses. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is ASI Subay Singh. PW1 is the first IO. PW1 deposed that on 17.02.2018, he was posted as PS Moti Nagar as ASI. On that day a written complaint dated 14.11.2017 from SDMC was marked to me for the registration of FIR by the SHO. He prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A and he got the FIR no. 00422018, u/s. 3 DPDP Act registered on that day and State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 2/9 investigated the present case. He deposed that after that he issued notice u/s 91 of Cr.p.C. and 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and on 24.02.2018, complainant/Inspector SDMC namely Suresh Kr. Yadav appeared in person in the PS and handed over one colour photograph Mark X displaying one Hindustan Times Newspaper dated 13.11.2017 and advertisement displaying JIO company board and counter on road/government land. The said photograph was seized by him, vide memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Om Parkash and SDMC Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav went to the spot i.e. in front of M/S. TNG Tele Services, Main Nazafgarh Road, opposite Metro Pillar No. 376. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and further investigation was marked to HC Om Parkash. He recorded the statement of cited witnesses u/s. 161 of Cr.p.c.
(b)PW2 is HC Om Parkash. PW2 is the second IO. PW2 deposed that on 24.02.2018, he was posted as PS Moti Nagar as HC. On that day the present case was marked to him by the SHO for investigation. On 26.02.2018, he reached at the spot i.e. at shop no. WZ15, Raja Garden, Nazafgarh Road, M/S. TNG Tele Services, Main Nazafgarh Road, opposite Metro Pillar No. 376, where he met State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 3/9 the accused person namely Sandeep Gupta, who was the owner of the said showroom, who after due enquiry made the disclosure regarding putting banner and counters of JIO company in front of his shop as he was owner of the shop and dealer of the agency and he pleaded ignorance that he has thereby defaced any public property which was recorded by him, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on the ground of disclosure he arrested the accused person vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B, bearing his signature at point A and he was also personally searched, vide memo Ex. PW2/C, bearing his signature at point A. As the offence u/s. 3 of DPDP Act is bailable, he released the accused on bail vide bail bond, which is attested by his at point A. Thereafter, he prepared the final charge sheet and filed the same before the court for judicial verdict.
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 State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 4/9 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 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 display 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 State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 5/9 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 step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) Photograph of the display board is on record. The photograph clearly reveals that the display board was put on the government land. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are the material witnesses show that the accused had committed the offence of defacement of the public property by putting the display board on the government land. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of display board in his statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 and PW2 are reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: On 17.02.2018, I was posted as PS Moti Nagar as ASI. On that day a written complaint dated 14.11.2017 from SDMC was marked to me for the registration of FIR by the SHO. I prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A and I got the FIR no. 0042 2018, u/s. 3 DPDP Act registered on that day and investigated the present case. Thereafter, I issued notice u/s 91 of Cr.p.C. and 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and on 24.02.2018, complainant/Inspector SDMC namely Suresh Kr.
State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 6/9 Yadav appeared in person in the PS and handed over one colour photograph Mark X displaying one Hindustan Times Newspaper dated 13.11.2017 and advertisement displaying JIO company board and counter on road/government land. The said photograph was seized by me, vide memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I alongwith HC Om Parkash and SDMC Inspector Suresh Kr. Yadav went to the spot i.e. in front of M/S. TNG Tele Services, Main Nazafgarh Road, opposite Metro Pillar No. 376. Thereafter, I prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, we returned to the PS and further investigation was marked to HC Om Parkash. I recorded the statement of cited witnesses u/s. 161 of Cr.p.c.
PW2:On 24.02.2018, I was posted as PS Moti Nagar as HC. On that day the present case was marked to me by the SHO for investigation. On 26.02.2018, I reached at the spot i.e. at shop no. WZ15, Raja Garden, Nazafgarh Road, M/S. TNG Tele Services, Main Nazafgarh Road, opposite Metro Pillar No. 376, where I met the accused person namely Sandeep Gupta, who is present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness, who was the owner of the said showroom, who after due enquiry made the disclosure regarding putting banner and counters of JIO company in front of his shop as he was owner of the shop and dealer of the agency and he pleaded ignorance that he has thereby defaced any public property which was recorded by me, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, on the ground of disclosure I arrested the accused person vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B, bearing my signature at point A and he was also personally searched, vide memo Ex. PW2/C, bearing my signature at point A. As the offence State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 7/9 u/s. 3 of DPDP Act is bailable, I released the accused on bail vide bail bond, which is attested by me at point A. Thereafter I prepared the final charge sheet and filed the same before the court for judicial verdict..".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW1 and PW2, 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 and PW2 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 discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 3 State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 8/9 DPDP Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 4th August of July, 2018 (This judgment consists of 9 pages) State Vs. Sandeep; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 9/9 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 422018 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Moti Nagar State Vs. Sandeep Gupta Case ID No. 21732018 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. Sandeep.; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 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 display 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 4th August, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Sandeep.; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 2/2
State Vs. Sandeep.; FIR No. 42-18; PS MT 2/2