Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

+0530 State Vs. Inderjeet Singh

(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.

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 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.