New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday directed the police to register an FIR against AAP leader and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was working on a complaint against him and others, who were allegedly disrupting public property through illegal hoardings in Dwarka.
The court directed the investigative agencies to find out where the hoardings were prepared/printed, who put them on the example of them.
The complaint against Kejriwal was filed under Section 3 of Section 3 of Delhi.
Show full article
Pointing to the deaths caused by the collapse of illegal hoardings in India, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal said: “The severity of the crime under Section 3 of the DPDP Act, 2007, the severity of the severity of the offense, is not only to destroy traffic from an eye point of view, but it is also dangerous that the safety challenge to pedestrians and vehicles.”
According to Section 3 (1) of the said Act, anyone who defines any property in public view with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, or defines any other material, except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupiers of such a property, it will be punishable with imprisonment for a word, which can increase for a year, which can increase for a year, which can increase 50,000 or two.
In addition, this act, which applies only to Delhi-NCR, defines the “exception” of the property, in which “in any other way” with appearance or beauty, harmful, harmful, malfunction or injuries.
What was the matter?
In the current case, a Shiv Kumar Saxena filed a complaint against Kejriwal and others for putting “illegal hoardings” in Dwarka in 2019, calling it a violation of Section 3 of the 2007 Act.
Saxena, in his complaint, alleged that Kejriwal, along with other accused, were misusing the huge hoardings in Sector 11 DDA Park, and in many other areas in Dwark, and in 10 and 11, and “decorating”, roads, roads, electric poles, walls and many other areas were misused by many other areas.
One of the hoardings said that the Delhi government led by Kejriwal will soon start registration for darshan at Kartapur Sahib Gurdwara in Pakistan. In addition, according to Saxena’s petition in the court, along with pictures of PM Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP leader JP Nadda, the residents had other hoardings of Guru Nanak Jayakauti and Kartik Purnima greetings.
Saying that such a performance of hoardings on public property was a clear violation of the 2007 Act, Saxena filed an initial complaint at a police station in Dwarka in November 2019.
What did the court decide?
In the order of its 13-page, the court said the question was determined whether the work of hanging banners or pasting hoardings was converted into a property under the 2007 Act.
Referring to the initial decision on the subject, TS Marwah vs State (2008), the court stated that it should be kept in mind that before coming in the picture of the 2007 Act, the prevention of disintegration of West Bengal’s Property Act, 1976 was implemented to Delhi.
Although the court acknowledged the equality of section 3 in both acts, it was reported that there was a difference. While the Act of 2007 included printing and painting under the definition of “writing”, the 1976 Act did not.
Through its Tuesday’s verdict, the court stated that the complainant provided visual evidence over the date and time, showing that the names and photographs of the accused, including the “illegal banner” Kejriwal, bore.
“The complainant has recorded photographs with the date and time stamp, to show that the names and photos of the accused individuals and other individuals, which have been illegally put, have been noted.
Keeping in mind the definition of the word “writing” defined in the DPDP Act, 2007, the court concluded that the banner boards have been hanged or the amount of hoardings has been done to displace the property under the said Act.
During the proceedings, Kejriwal’s lawyer argued that Saxena had mentioned the names of 8–10 accused in the case, including PM Modi, in the initial complaint filed by him. However, most of these names were released from the current application.
The court dismissed the argument that some names were abandoned by the current complaint, saying that it could not have any effect on the fate of the case.
“The complainant cannot determine the course of the investigation to mention or leave the name of some individuals. The judge said that the investigating agency has enough power to include any person as an accused, although the current application/complaint has not been nominated as accused, whose complexity in the Commission of Crime is established by investigation, ”the judge said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also read: There are promises here Delhi