Court arrests auto driver for harassing passengers at airport
4 July 2014 6:08 AM IST
For alluring and harassing passengers at the airport, an auto-rickshaw driver has been convicted by a Delhi court. This was based on a complaint by the Delhi police official. The court rejected the contention of the accused that there was no public witnesses. Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma convicted Vinod Singh, a south-west Delhi resident, for trying to allure and harass people under the Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Act, 2010.
‘Prosecution has firmly established its case against the accused (Singh)... this court is of the view that he committed the offence under Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 and he is accordingly convicted for the same,’ said the court.
The maximum punishment under the Act is one- year imprisonment. While convicting Singh, the court rejected his contention that police should not be believed because the investigating officer was the complainant himself. The magistrate said the law does not prevent a policeman from becoming a complainant or a competent witness. ‘A policeman is as competent a witness as any other person and the testimony of policeman is reliable and trustworthy and plausible explanation is given by the police for not making any public person as witness. The testimony can be relied upon,’ the court said.
According to the prosecution, on 13 January, 2013, near the domestic airport terminal parking zone, Singh was found trying to lure passengers on the pretext of cheap hotels and low fare, which has caused harassment to passengers and left them annoyed.
A head constable, who was on duty at the airport, noticed Singh and asked him to stop troubling passengers. When he did not pay heed, the policeman arrested him under Section 4 of the Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Act, 2010. During the trial, Singh claimed he was falsely implicated and his counsel contended there was no public witness or harassed passenger who could support the case. The court rejected this contention saying ‘it is not very uncommon that public persons are generally reluctant to join as a witness and appear before the court as a witness.’
‘Prosecution has firmly established its case against the accused (Singh)... this court is of the view that he committed the offence under Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourist Act, 2010 and he is accordingly convicted for the same,’ said the court.
The maximum punishment under the Act is one- year imprisonment. While convicting Singh, the court rejected his contention that police should not be believed because the investigating officer was the complainant himself. The magistrate said the law does not prevent a policeman from becoming a complainant or a competent witness. ‘A policeman is as competent a witness as any other person and the testimony of policeman is reliable and trustworthy and plausible explanation is given by the police for not making any public person as witness. The testimony can be relied upon,’ the court said.
According to the prosecution, on 13 January, 2013, near the domestic airport terminal parking zone, Singh was found trying to lure passengers on the pretext of cheap hotels and low fare, which has caused harassment to passengers and left them annoyed.
A head constable, who was on duty at the airport, noticed Singh and asked him to stop troubling passengers. When he did not pay heed, the policeman arrested him under Section 4 of the Delhi Prevention of Touting and Malpractices against Tourists Act, 2010. During the trial, Singh claimed he was falsely implicated and his counsel contended there was no public witness or harassed passenger who could support the case. The court rejected this contention saying ‘it is not very uncommon that public persons are generally reluctant to join as a witness and appear before the court as a witness.’
Next Story
