Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Arun Kumar Garg held that there was not even an iota of evidence by the prosecution to prove that the board/hoarding was either installed by Hussain or that the same was installed at his instance or for his benefit.
“In fact, the IO has failed to point out in the chargesheet as to how he had pinned down at the name of the accused as the installer of the Board Ex. P3, in as much as, he has neither recorded the statement of residents of the locality where the board in question was found affixed by the police, nor has he recorded the statement of the printer,” the Court said.
The judge observed that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in its evidence even deposed that the board in question was either hung on the pole by the accused or that the same was installed at his instance.
It was only during their cross examination that they said that they had made enquiries from some other public persons about the name of the people who had installed this board, yet upon further questioning, they could not tell the names and addresses of these, the Court noted.
“Thus, in the absence of any proof as to the installation of the alleged board by or at the behest of the accused, much less, the proof beyond reasonable doubts qua the said fact, there is no question of the accused being guilty for the offence of defacement of the property within the meaning of Section 3 of DPDP Act,” the Court ruled.
Source: Barandbench
