Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. That on 17.04.2024 at 07:30 pm, under Naraina Flyover near Pillar no.12 within the jurisdiction of PS Naraina, one board was affixed on electric pole having mention of words " Admission Open Apply Now Kanwas Kids Discovering Open Minds Pre School Pay Group L.K.G, U.K. G and Classes I to V " which was affixed by the accused and thereby the accused was chargesheeted under section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'DPDP Act') for defacement of the public property and commission of an offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act.

2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of the chargesheet and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to accused and he was served with notice u/sec 3 of DPDP Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In proceedings under Section 294 Cr.P.C/330 FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-2 of 10 BNSS, the accused admitted the FIR No. 130/2024, PS Naraina as well as the endorsement on the original rukka and accordingly the Duty Officer of concerned PS was dropped as a witness.

12. The sole difference in definition of writing in both the Acts is inclusiveness of printing in Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.

13. Except addition of printing in definition of writing, provisions of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act for Section 3 of both the Acts are also same. So ratio in judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in T. S. Marwah's case (Supra) still holds good for present case as facts of present case are similar to those in T. S. Marwah's case and putting up of banner/poster will not be covered u/sec 3 (1) of DPDP Act.

14. In view of the above facts, circumstances and position of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and to bring his acts and conduct within the provision of law constituting the offence or within legal ambit which FIR No.130/2024 PS Naraina Page-9 of 10 would warrant his conviction and punishment in the present case. Hence the case u/sec 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is not made out against accused. I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled to be acquitted for offence u/sec 3 of DPDP Act.