Section 135 Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Presumption for Contravention of Orders
Section 135 sets out a rebuttable statutory presumption in criminal prosecutions alleging breach of an order issued under Section 46, 47 or 48 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. It concerns the competence of the issuing authority, the necessity for the order and its legal validity.
Text of Section 135
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in a prosecution for an offence for the contravention of an order made under section 46, section 47 or section 48 on the production of an authentic copy of the order, it shall, until the contrary is proved by the accused, be presumed—
- that the order was made by the authority competent under this Act to make it;
- that the authority making the order was satisfied that the grounds on, or the purpose for, which it was made existed, and that it was necessary to make the same; and
- that the order was otherwise valid and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.
Meaning and operation of the provision
The words "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force" give this specific presumption overriding effect where it applies. The prosecution must be one for contravention of an order under one of the three specified sections, and an authentic copy of that order must be produced before the presumption arises.
Section 135(a): Competence of the authority
Once the statutory conditions are met, the court presumes that the authority issuing the order was empowered under the Act. The accused may produce contrary evidence to challenge that presumption.
Section 135(b): Grounds and necessity
The court also presumes that the issuing authority was satisfied about the grounds or purpose for the order and considered the order necessary. This is a rebuttable presumption, not a conclusive declaration that every order is lawful.
Section 135(c): Validity and statutory conformity
The order is presumed otherwise valid and consistent with the Delhi Police Act, subject to proof to the contrary by the accused. The presumption does not eliminate the requirement to establish other elements of the charged offence.
Orders covered by Sections 46, 47 and 48
Section 46 addresses dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons. Section 47 concerns removal of persons about to commit offences. Section 48 concerns removal of persons convicted of certain offences. Section 135 applies specifically to prosecutions for contravention of orders made under these provisions.
Authentic copy and burden of rebuttal
An authentic copy is a copy whose genuineness as a copy of the relevant order can be established. Section 135 does not itself prescribe a universal certification format. Section 133 of the Act separately addresses methods of proving certain orders and notifications. Whether the produced document is authentic and whether the statutory presumption has been rebutted depend on the evidence in the particular case.
The words "until the contrary is proved by the accused" make the presumption rebuttable. A person facing prosecution may contest authority, the factual grounds, necessity or conformity with the Act. The provision should not be read as automatically proving service, knowledge, actual contravention or every other ingredient of an offence.
Official legal references
Read the Delhi Police Act, 1978 - official India Code PDF and the Delhi Police Acts and Rules directory. For the related proof provision, see Section 133: Method of proving orders and notifications.