Delhi District Court
Devender Chauhan vs State on 9 April, 2015
Criminal Revision No. 22/15 D.O.D.: 09.04.2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 22/15
Unique Case ID: 02404R0122122015
Devender Chauhan
S/o Sh. Surender Chauhan
R/o Village & P.O Jakhauli
District Sonipat, Haryana.
...Petitioner
Versus
State ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 01.04.2015
Date on which Order was reserved: 08.04.2015
Date on which Order pronounced : 09.04.2015
O R D E R:
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM, Rohini Court, Delhi, whereby the present revisionist has been convicted for offence punishable U/s 112 D.P Act in kalandara U/s 28/112 DP Act prepared against him vide DD no. 10A dt. 19.03.15 at PS Adarsh Nagar.
2. After the revision petition was assigned to this Court, trial Court record was summoned and thereafter, submissions have been heard on behalf of both the sides.
3. It was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Devender Chauhan Vs. State Page 1 of 4 Criminal Revision No. 22/15 D.O.D.: 09.04.2015 was not the owner of the disputed premises i.e. Baba Guest House. Rather, he was acting as a Care Taker of the said Guest House and license to run the said Guest House had been issued in the name of Ms. Suneeta Kalra W/o Sh. Harish Kalra. As per Ld. counsel, owner Smt. Suneeta Kalra had a valid license from 03.07.2014 till 31.03.2015 to run the said Guest House . Ld. counsel submitted that since there was a valid license for running the said Guest House, the petitioner could not have been convicted by Ld. trial Court and the relevant part of the impunged order whereby SHO concerned was directed to file the Closure Report is against the provisions of law and the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matters titled as "
Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr." in Criminal MC No. 157/13 and another matter titled as " Janak Raj Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Ors." reported at 2012 VI AD ( Delhi) 644.
4. Per contra, Ld. Additional PP submitted that the applicant was running the Guest House on contract basis and it was his duty to obtain the license for running the Guest House. It was also submitted that Ld. trial Court has rightly convicted the revisionist on the basis of his plea of guilt and has rightly sentenced him to fine of Rs. 50/ and direction for filing Closure Report of the said Guest House. He therefore submitted that the impugned order should not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
5. Trial Court record has been perused by this Court. Perusal thereof reveals that the Baba Guest House had a valid license in respect of 14 rooms and the same was valid from 03.07.2014 till 31.03.2015. As per Kalandra, the raid had been conducted on 19.3.2015. Thus, it necessarily follows therefrom that the raid had been conducted during the validity of the said license.
6. A perusal of the kalandra in question would reveal that there was no Devender Chauhan Vs. State Page 2 of 4 Criminal Revision No. 22/15 D.O.D.: 09.04.2015 allegation that the present revisionist was running the said Guest House without any license. As per the allegations mentioned therein, one Deepak S/o Sh Satpal was found in Room No. 303 and there was no entry in the guest house register regarding his presence. It was on the basis thereof that the present revisionist was challaned U/s 28/112 D.P Act and was sentenced to fine of Rs. 50/. There is no direction given in the said order to the revisionist/accused to close down the guest house. Even the proceedings order dt. 21.03.15 does not specifically mention about any order regarding direction to the revisionist/accused/convict to close down the aforesaid guest house. All it mentions is that the closure report be filed by the SHO concerned for 10.04.2015.
7. This Court is left guessing as to how the closure report can be filed by the SHO without any specific order to that effect. As per Section 112 D.P Act, while convicting an accused, the Court firstly has to direct the person keeping the said place to close down the same until he obtains a license or a fresh license. It is only on failure of the said person to comply with such direction that action can be taken in that regard by the police authority. Ld trial Court without having directed the convict (revisionist) to close down the guest house, could not have passed order for filing of a closure report.
8. In the aforesaid authorities relied by Ld counsel of revisionist, it has been observed that an employee/agent of owner cannot be prosecuted U/s 28/112 DP Act as he is not supposed to obtain a license and Kalandra should not be prepared against an employee available at the premises.
9. Similar view has been taken by our own High Court in the matter titled as " SAS Pawha Vs. State" reported at 88 (2000) DLT 194 and in subsequent judgment in the matter titled as " Avnish Sharma Vs. State" passed in Criminal Devender Chauhan Vs. State Page 3 of 4 Criminal Revision No. 22/15 D.O.D.: 09.04.2015 MC No. 1034/2005 decided on 24.01.2008.
10. Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact that the aforesaid guest house had a valid license which was valid from 03.07.2014 to 31.03.2015 while the raid was conducted on the intervening night of 19.03.2015 and in view of fact that Ld trial Court had not ordered any direction to the convict to close down the guest house nor had passed any direction to the SHO concerned to close it down on failure of the convict to close down the guest house and in view of judicial pronouncements mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law.
11. Accordingly, while accepting the revision petition, the impugned order dated 21.03.2015 is hereby set aside. Since, it has been informed to the Court that in view of order dt. 21.03.15 passed by Ld trial Court, the aforesaid Guest House has already been closed by the police authority, SHO PS Adarsh Nagar is hereby directed to permit reopining of the said guest house subject to the owner taking a fresh license/ renewed license as per the rules.
12. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of this Order. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on 09.04.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Devender Chauhan Vs. State Page 4 of 4
Criminal Revision No. 22/15 D.O.D.: 09.04.2015
Devender Chauhan Vs. State Page 5 of 4