Delhi District Court
State vs Karan Kapoor on 31 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, MM-03, SE,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DD No.49A dated 28.12.2020
State Versus Karan Kapoor
PS- Hazrat Nizamuddin
Date of institution : 11.01.2021
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2021
JUDGEMENT
a) DD No. 49A
b) Date of commission of offence 28.12.2020
SI C.L. Meena
c) Name of the complainant
Sh. Karan Kapoor
Name, parentage and address S/o Sh Virender Kapoor
d) of the accused R/o- H. No.S-14-15, Pratap Market, Jangpura-B, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of 28(za)/112 DP Act f) Plea of the accused not pleaded guilty g) Final order Acquitted h) Date of final order 31.03.2021
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Karan Kapoor is running a guest house in the name of 'Harriet Homes' without obtaining permit or licence from the competent authority. On 28.08.2020, SI Ram Kumar Singh and PW SI C.L. Meena (both posted at P.S- H.N.Din) found out during the course of DD no. 49A dated 28.12.2020, their patrolling duty that the accused was running an guest house in the name of 'Harriet Homes' without obtaining permit or licence from the competent authority. The accused was challaned under section 28(za) read with DD No.49A dated 28.12.2020 State Versus Karan Kapoor section 112 of The Delhi Police Act, 1978 and a kalandara was forwarded to the court.
2. On the basis of the said kalandara, the cognizance of the offence was taken. The copies of the kalandara were supplied to the accused and on the basis of the same, a notice under section 28(za)/112 of The Delhi Police Act, 1978 was framed.
WITNESSES EXAMINED
3. The prosecution examined two witnesses, i.e. PW1 SI Ram Kumar and PW2 SI C.L.Meena who both stated that during the investigation, they found that accused Karan Kapoor was running a guest house 'Harriet Homes' without obtaining any valid permit, the requisite licence from the competent authority.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
4. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr PC read with section 281 Cr PC pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. The accused further stated in his statement u/s.313 CrPC that 'Harriet Homes' was being renovated and not operational.
ARGUMENTS
5. Ld. APP has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that PW1 and PW2 have narrated similar facts and there are only minor contradictions in their testimony which does not corrode the evidentially value of their statements. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has assailed the case of the prosecution. The counsel has argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and their testimony is not reliable. He has contended that no public witness was joined in the investigation and no justification has come on record for the said failure. On the force of the said DD No.49A dated 28.12.2020 State Versus Karan Kapoor arguments, the counsel has submitted that the accused should be acquitted.
6. have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Defence counsel and have carefully gone through the entire record.
BRIEF REASONS
7. The evidence on record basically constitute the testimony of PW1 and PW2. They both are police officials. SI Ram Kumar (PW1) has deposed that on 28.12.2020, between 4pm and 5 pm, while he was on patrolling duty, he found that the accused Karan Kapoor was running a guest house and he failed to produce any certificate of registration for running the same. SL CL Meena (PW2) has also deposed on similar lines. He has mentioned that he was accompanying SI Ram Kumar on the patrolling duty and found that accused was running a guest house without obtaining licence from the competent authority.
8. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and is required to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty.
9. Section 28 of Delhi Police Act confers power upon the Commissioner of Police to make regulations by way of notification in official gazette in respect of certain matters. Section 28(1)(za) of the said Act deals with the registration of eating house and provides that written permission/license is mandatory for the purpose of running an eating house within the meaning of the said Act. Section 112 of the Act provides punishment/penalty in case of violation of the provision contained in Section 28 of the said Act.
10. The expression "Eating House" has been defined by Section 2(h) of the said Act. It provides that eating house means any place to which public are admitted and where any kind of food or drink is supplied for consumption DD No.49A dated 28.12.2020 State Versus Karan Kapoor on the premises by any person owning or having any interest in, or managing such place and includes a refreshment room, boarding house or coffee house, or a shop where any kind of food or drink is supplied to the public for consumption in or near such shop. The careful perusal of the definition of phrase "Eating House" makes it abundantly clear that serving of any kind of food or drink for consumption by the public at large is sine- quanon for the application of the provision contained in Section 28 of Delhi Police Act.
11. In the case in hand, the prosecution has alleged that accused herein was running a guest house under the name and style of 'Harriet Homes' at S- 14/15, Pratap Market, Jungpura B, New Delhi on 28.12.2020 without any valid permit or license. Thus, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove during trial that 'Harriet Homes' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of D.P Act was actually being run at the given address on 28.12.2020 without any valid license. For the said purpose, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was owner or was having any interest or manager of the said premises. However, there is no evidence available on record which may prove that the accused herein had any concern whatsoever with the said premises as on the date of commission of alleged offence. No document whatsoever has been collected by investigating agency in order to show as to how the present accused is connected with 'Harriet Homes' or that he is either owner or is having any interest or he is the manager of the premises at the given address.
12. Be that as it may, the prosecution has not been able to prove on record that any eating house was actually being run at the given address as on the date of commission of alleged offence.
13. Not only this, it has been admitted by PW2 during his cross examination that he did not seize any documents/registers/invoices from the premises.
DD No.49A dated 28.12.2020 State Versus Karan Kapoor The Court finds considerable force in the submission made on behalf of accused that it was the duty of IO to seize the relevant documents/invoices issued to the customers on that day in order to prove on record that any eating house was actually being run from the said premises. The said document was the most material piece of evidence which could have established the guilt of accused during trial. However, the same has not been done by the investigating agency.
14. The said prosecution witnesses have also failed to explain as to why none of the public persons was examined by IO in case he /she was present inside the said premises at that time. It is also not understandable as to why the photographs from inside the said premises were not taken by IO at that time.
15. In view of the discussions made in the above said paras, I am of the considered opinion that the charges against the accused have not been established. Accordingly, the accused Karan Kapoor stands acquitted for committing an offence under section 28 (za)/112 of The Delhi Police Act, 1978.
Digitally signed by VASUNDHARA Announced in open Court on 31.03.2021 VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date: 2021.03.31 17:20:33 +0530 (VASUNDHARA AZAD) MM-03 (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi DD No.49A dated 28.12.2020 State Versus Karan Kapoor