Delhi HC Quashes Two-Day ‘Sham’ Trial | Says Fair Hearing Cannot Be Rushed Or Pretend | Orders Fresh Hearing In Defacement Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has set aside a conviction under the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, along with the sentence of admonition imposed under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court found that the trial proceedings had been conducted in undue haste, without granting the accused the opportunity to engage counsel or cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Directing that the case be tried afresh, the Court ordered the accused to appear before the trial court on the scheduled date for proceedings to commence in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice.
The matter arose from FIR No. 0119/2018 dated 24 February 2018, registered under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007. The accused was informed on 3 April 2018 to appear before the court on 20 April 2018. Upon appearance, he was not represented by counsel. On the same date, the magistrate took cognizance of the offence, accepted the accused's personal bond, framed notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., recorded prosecution evidence, and closed the prosecution case.
The sole prosecution witness examined was PW-1 HC Shiv Prasad, the Investigating Officer, who deposed based on a complaint dated 12 January 2018 by one Suresh Kumar Yadav, AISTMC. The complainant himself was not examined. No opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine the witness or to present a defence.
On 23 April 2018, the accused again appeared in court. His statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations. The court, however, recorded in its judgment that the accused had admitted to putting up a board, contrary to the record. On the same date, the court convicted the accused under Section 3 of the DPDP Act and sentenced him to admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The accused contended before the High Court that the trial violated the principles of natural justice, as he was neither given adequate time to engage counsel nor provided with a copy of the charge sheet. He asserted that the entire trial was concluded over two dates in undue haste, without allowing him to challenge the prosecution's evidence. He further argued that the judgment incorrectly recorded that he had admitted guilt and that the conviction came to light only when his passport renewal application was processed in October 2019.
The State, through its status report, outlined the complaint, trial court proceedings, and conviction. It did not address the accused's claim of being denied legal representation and the opportunity for a fair trial.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the trial court record and stated: "The predicament of the Petitioner is evident from the fact that the sentence awarded to him even if of admonition, by virtue of Section 376 Cr.P.C., he is prevented from challenging the Judgment by way of an Appeal."
The Court recorded: "While a sentence of admonition may not be challengeable under Section 376 Cr.P.C., but Section 11(2) of Probation of Offenders Act provides... an Appeal would lie... but this also has been limited to challenging the Order of admonition and not the Judgment of conviction." Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On the trial proceedings of 20 April 2018, the Court noted: "It only reflects the haste in the mind of the learned MM in concluding the trial... This discrepancy itself reflects the non-application of mind and also undue haste in denying an opportunity to the Petitioner to be sufficiently represented."
Regarding the evidence, the Court stated: "No opportunity whatsoever was given to the Petitioner either to engage the Counsel or to cross-examine the Prosecution witness." The Court further recorded: "The most material witness to prove the contents of the Charge-sheet was... the Complainant, but interestingly, he has not been examined... The IO was not a competent witness to prove the case of the Prosecution."
The Court observed discrepancies in the trial court's judgment, stating: "This is patently against the record as nowhere did the Petitioner admit the incriminating evidence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C."
The Court concluded: "From the entire record, it is evident that not only has the Petitioner been denied a right of fair hearing and to defend himself but the Judgment itself is based on circumstances which have neither been proved by the Prosecution nor admitted by the Petitioner."
The Court declared: "Though, the legislation in its wisdom had thought it appropriate to not let the conviction resulting in petty sentence to be challengeable, but in the present case of patent illegality, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the Judgment... as well as the Order on Sentence dated 23.04.2018."
It directed: "The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 18.08.2025 and the entire trial be conducted afresh in accordance with procedure, after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to engage a counsel and right of fair trial."
The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly, along with pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Respondent: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates along with SI Vikas Yadav, P.S. Rajouri Garden
Case Title: Aditya Rai Gupta v. State
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6676
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 486/2020
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
