Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Moni on 12 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Krishan Moni
FIR No : 45/2024
U/s : 4(a) of The Delhi Prevention of Touting and
Malpractices against Tourist Act
P.S. : Domestic Airport
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW022443922024
2. Date of commission of offence : 10.10.2024
3. Date of institution of the case : 06.11.2024
4. Name of the complainant : SI Nanhya Ram
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Krishan Moni
address S/o Sukhbir Sehrawat,
R/o J-44, East Mehram
Nagar, Delhi Cantt.,
Delhi
6. Offence complained of : 4(a) of The Delhi
Prevention of Touting
and Malpractices
against Tourist Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 12.06.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Sh. Rajnikant Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 1 of 10 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.06.12
15:19:40 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.10.2024 at about 05:45 PM at Private Line in front of Arrival Gate, Domestic Airport, New Delhi, you were indulged in touting by enticing the tourists for accommodation and sight-seeing on the pretext of providing them with hotels and services at discounted rates in Delhi and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 4(a) of the Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, for which FIR no.45/2024 was registered at the police station Domestic Airport, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. This court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under Section 4(a) of the Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act was served upon the accused on 13.12.2024. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 2 of 10 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.06.12 15:19:47 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 SI Anupam Gautam PW-2 SI Nanhya Ram DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/B Tehrir ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.45/2024 alongwith certificate u/S 65B of IEA
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
PW1 SI Anupam Gautam deposed that on 10.10.2024, the present case was marked to him thereafter, he went to the spot and recorded statement of Nanhe Ram, complainant in the present case Ex.PW1/A and he prepared tehrir Ex.PW1/B. He stated that he interrogated the accused and served him notice u/S 35(c) of BNSS and thereafter, after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court. The witness correctly identified the accused present before the Court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not obtain the CCTV footage even after the airport has CCTV cameras installed in all the directions. He stated that there were public persons present at the spot when he apprehended the accused and no notice could be served upon public persons due to paucity of time.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 3 of 10 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.06.12 15:19:52 +0530
5. PW2 SI Nanhya Ram deposed that on 10.10.2024, he was on patrolling duty and during patrolling, around 05:30 pm, he saw one person at the arrival gate and luring the tourist for providing them cheap taxi. He stated that he apprehended him and he revealed his name as Krishan and he asked the tourist present there to give complaint but none of them agreed and left the spot.
He stated that he took him to PS and handed over him to SI Anupam Gautam and IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused present before the Court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had not prepared any video of the spot and IO did not seize any CCTV footage in his presence. He stated that he had not noted down the names of tourist to whom the accused was luring and he had not inquired from any other driver who was present there.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
6. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr. PC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 4 of 10 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.06.12 15:19:57 +0530
8. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
9. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE The provision of Section 4 (a) of the Act prescribes penalties, which is as under: Any person who - (a) touts or commits malpractice shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
According to Section 2 (f) of the Act, defines touting as, Touting includes enticing, misguiding or coercing for shopping, accommodation, transportation, sight-seeing or pestering for any particular premises, including the precincts thereof, any person, establishment, dealer or manufacturer for personal consideration;
Further explanation of the definition provides that, Whoever loiters around airports , railway stations, bus stands , markets or any other places frequented by tourists with the intention of offering any unsolicited service Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 5 of 10 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.06.12 15:20:03 +0530 to the tourist or pestering or coercing him to -use any such service and exhibits such conduct so as to show such intention (like following , arguing, communicating or otherwise drawing attention of tourists through words or gestures or placards or pamphlets thereby causing obstruction or annoyance to tourists or general public) and otherwise has no reasonable explanation for frequenting the said -place will be deemed to have committed the act of touting.
10. It is well settled that the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved in the entirety merely because all the witnesses are official witnesses and no independent witness could be produced by the prosecution. Each case has to be determined on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances. Reliance in that regard is laid upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tahir Vs. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338, wherein it has been observed as hereinunder:
"6. Mr. D. D. Thakur, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that PW-4 to PW-7 on whose evidence the conviction has been recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any independent witness to corroborate them, it was not safe to rely upon their testimony to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We cannot agree. In our opinion no. infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no. rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. In the present case, there is only one material witness of the incident i.e., PW2 SI Nanhya Ram who stated that he saw the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 6 of 10 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.06.12 15:20:08 +0530 accused indulging in touting activities. However, in his cross- examination, he stated that he had not prepared any video of the spot and IO did not seize any CCTV footage in his presence. He stated that he had not noted down the names of tourist to whom the accused was luring and he had not inquired from any other driver who was present there. In this manner, there is a major lapse on the part of IO to conduct proper and fair investigation regarding the incident, but the testimony of the complainant reflects substantial inconsistency in his cross-examination. This factor renders the testimony of the complainant himself unreliable.
12. Further, it is pertinent to highlight there that PW1 SI Anupam Gautam who was the IO in the present case did not prepare any site plan so there is no material evidence on record to establish the place of incident and as such the presence of accused person in and about the premises of Domestic Airport is not proved by any other evidence as well. The explanation of the definition of touting clearly states that whoever loiters around the Airport with the intention of offering any unsolicited service to the tourist. Therefore, the presence of the accused at the Airport is sine qua non for establishing the offence of Section 4(a) of the Act. Non- preparation of the site plan clearly jeopardizes the case of the prosecution. Further, a place like Domestic Airport is under the watch of CCTV surveillance and no reason is forthcoming as to why such crucial piece of evidence was never procured by the IO during the investigation. Therefore, the presence of accused at the spot remains doubtful.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV Date:
FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 7 of 10 AHLAWAT 2025.06.12 15:20:13 +0530
13. Apparently, the entire case seems to have been framed at the police station itself. Under Section 100 (4) of Cr. P. C., a duty is cast upon the police official conducting search from any person to call upon independent witnesses to join the investigation. Although it is true that such procedure is not always possible to follow because of the reluctance shown by the public witnesses to join police investigation, nevertheless, it has been held in catena of judgments that each case shall be determined on its own facts and circumstances and the prosecution shall have to provide a reasonable explanation for not being able to adhere to the procedure laid down in law. At this juncture, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 wherein it was held as herein under:
"7. It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 CrPC would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been compiled with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non- compliance. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions."
14. In the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence to support the testimony of PW2. While it is well settled that the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved in the entirety merely Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 8 of 10 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.06.12 15:20:18 +0530 because all the witnesses are official witnesses and no independent witness could be produced by the prosecution, nonetheless, as observed herein above, each case has to be determined on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the very foundation on which the prosecution case rested is shaken. Furthermore, there is no other witness who corroborate the prosecution case regarding the alleged act committed by the accused. The Court may draw the presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the acts done by the police officials in discharge of their duties have been properly done in accordance with law, unless the said presumption is rebutted by the contesting party. The aforesaid loopholes highlighted by the Court are sufficient to rebut the said presumption.
15. Furthermore, no independent public witness has been joined in the investigation which further makes the prosecution case dubious. Further, there is no DD entry regarding the emergency duty of PW2 to show his presence at whereby he arrested the accused.
CONCLUSION
16. In the instant case, it has been held that the testimonies of police witnesses do not inspire confidence and the presence of the accused is not established. The investigation appears to be faulty and incomplete. The aforesaid loopholes highlighted by the Court are sufficient to discredit the prosecution case.
17. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of Section 4 (a), The Delhi Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Page 9 of 10 Date:
FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni AHLAWAT 2025.06.12 15:20:23 +0530 Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 against the accused beyond reasonable doubts entitling the accused to benefit of doubt. Resultantly, since the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused, the accused Krishan Moni, is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 (a), The Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT on 12.06.2025 in the presence Date: AHLAWAT 2025.06.12 15:20:29 of the accused. +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/12.06.2025
Note:- This judgment contains 10 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.06.12
15:20:35
+0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/12.06.2025
FIR No.45/2024, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Krishan Moni Page 10 of 10