'Entire Trial Was Concluded In Two Days': Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'Sham' Conviction Under Defacement Of Public Property Act

Noting that the Petitioner-accused found out about his conviction and that he is released on probation only upon seeking renewal of his passport, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphatically observed,

“The condemnation under law should be rendered only after the trial in which hearing is a real one and not sham or a mere farce and pretence. Since the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial.”

As per Petitioner, he was informed by one police official to appear before the Court on 20.04.2018. Accordingly, he appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, not represented by any Counsel and completely uninformed about the proceedings.

He again appeared before the Court on 23.04.2018 when he was asked to deposit a fine of Rs.1,000/- before the Court. He claimed that he duly complied with the directions despite the fact that he was not aware of the nature of the proceedings.

Subsequently, in October, 2019, he applied for renewal of his Passport. Upon routine police verification and to his shock, his conviction under Section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 was recorded.

Petitioner claimed he was unaware of the conviction and when he inspected the Court records through his Counsel he found that he had been released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

He claimed that the entire trial from taking cognizance and framing of charges to recording of evidence was done on one date and no time was granted to him to engage a Counsel. His statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, entire prosecution evidence was recorded without giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or lead evidence in his defence, and judgment was pronounced on the second date.

Petitioner claimed he was even not provided with the copy of the Judgment.

After perusing the record, the Court was of the view,

“It only reflects the haste in the mind of the learned MM in concluding the trial…It has been rightly contended that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the Petitioner either to engage the Counsel or to cross-examine the Prosecution witness…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.”

As such, the Court ordered that 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.

Appearance: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates alongwith SI Vikas Yadav, P.S. Rajouri Garden

Case title: Aditya Rai Gupta v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 963

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 486/2020

Click here to read order