Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vaibhav Mehta of Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi recently acquitted former Delhi Minister and Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) member Rajender Pal Gautam, MLA Durgesh Pathak, and thirty-six others in connection with protests on the pricing of petrol and diesel during Covid-19 pandemic.

An FIR was registered against all the accused under Sections 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 34 (common intention) of IPC.

Court noted that the accused persons had violated the direction dated July 1, 2020, of the Kamla Market District, wherein all social/political/sports/cultural/religious/other gatherings and large congregations were prohibited to contain the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The prosecution’s case was that all the accused persons violated the directions of the aforesaid notification and assemble to protest against the price rise of petrol and diesel. It was alleged that police officers, including the ACP, communicated the prohibition order issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the crowd, but the crowd refused to disperse.

The ACMM noted that the prosecution had not filed any evidence to prove the factum of communication of the prohibition order and that no video or photographs were filed.

The court stated that there was no substantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to show that the prohibition order was duly communicated to the persons protesting.

The court said, “Even if this court believes that the prohibition order was necessitated due to the advent of the Covid-19 epidemic and so there were valid reasons for issuing the order of prohibition issued by the ACP, Kamla Market, on 01/07/2020 u/s 144 Cr. P.C vide Notification No. 6390-6460-ACP/Kamla Market, still, the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt whether the above-said prohibition order was duly communicated to the protesters before they were detained and FIR was registered against them especially since no such prohibition order was in place in the area on 29/06/2020 and 30/06/2020.”

ACMM Mehta opined that the prosecution had to prove beyond doubt that the accused persons were part of the illegal gathering and were present at the spot in violation of the abovesaid notification.

“The police officials including HC Amit Kumar were not aware of this prohibitory order at the time of the gathering of the alleged accused, so the accused persons cannot be expected to have prior knowledge of this prohibitory order issued u/s 144 Cr. P.C at the time of their gathering and the onus was on the prosecution to show that the accused persons were not only present at the spot, gathering in large groups but also were communicated and informed about the Notification No. 6390-6460-ACP/Kamla Market issued by the ACP concerned u/s 144 Cr. P.C”, the court stated.

Conclusively, after going through all material on record and testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the Court held that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and there were "serious lacunas" in the investigation carried out by the police officials.

Accordingly, the court acquitted all the accused persons from the charges u/S 188/34 IPC and directed them to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance with u/S 437A CrPC.

Case Title: State v. Rajender Pal Gautam and Ors.