Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In the present case, the accused is charged for commission of the offence punishable u/s 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.. There are allegations against the accused that he has fixed a hoarding on the public property and defaced the same.

10.The provision of Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is reproduced for guidance:­ Section 3 (1) West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act Penalty for defacement of property :­ (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 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both."

14.I have also relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976, titled as T.S. Marwah & Ors. Vs State reported in 2008 (4) JCC 2561 FIR No. 539/08 S/V Hari Kishan Page No. 6/ wherein it has been held as under : ­ "A bare look at Section 3(1) goes to show that the offences committed therein would be punishable only if the defacement is done in respect of property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. There is nothing in the charge sheet filed against the petitioners to indicate that any property was defaced by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. The only allegation is that the banner was put on an electric pole. Mere putting of the banner will not get covered by Section 3(1) of The West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. It is true that 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 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.

15.n the judgment ( supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has made it crystal clear that the provision of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 are applicable when the defacement of the property is done by using the ink or other material. The present case is also on the same fact on which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already passed the judgment. The judgment ( supra) is squarely applicable in the present case.

16.In the present case the alleged banner was affixed on electric pole and it was neither pasted nor any ink was used . Therefore, it does not attract the provision of Section 3 of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976.

FIR No. 539/08 S/V Hari Kishan Page No. 7/

17. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Accordingly accused Hari Kishan is acquitted for the commission of offence punishable u/s 3(1) of West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 . His personal bond and surety bond is extended for a period of six months U/S 437 (A) CrPC.