Delhi District Court
M/S Trillion Motels Pvt. Ltd vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 16 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE (SOUTH DISTRICT) SAKET: NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 82/2014
ID No.: 02406R0093652014
1. M/s Trillion Motels Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office At: Kh. No. 218/3/2, 218/3/3,
219/1, 219/2, 220, 222/2, 223/1, M. G. Road
Sultanpur, New Delhi through its Director
Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehra.
2. Saurabh Sharma
s/o Sh. Prashottam Sharma
R/o B24, Jungpura Extn.
New Delhi. .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Station House Officer,
PS Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi. .... Respondents
Instituted on: 22.04.2014
Judgment reserved on:16.05.2014
Judgment pronounced on:16.05.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. This revision petition has been preferred seeking to question the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by Ms. Chetna Singh Metropolitan Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 1 of 10 Magistrate (Judge, Evening Court No.1), Saket on the file of criminal case arising out of Kalandra (complaint) registered vide No. 23/2014, presented by Inspector Gurnam Singh, ATO of police station Fatehpur Beri alleging offence under Section 28/112 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 having been committed in respect of the premises described as eating house run in the name and style of Trillion Hotel from a premises at M. G. Road, Manglapuri, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of the said police station.
2. As per the kalandra, petitioner no.2 was sought to be prosecuted on the allegations that when the premises of the said eating house was inspected by the complainant SI, in the wake of information about the fight incident having been received and recorded vide DD no. 6A at 02.59 hours dated 13.02.2014, it was found that a dinner party had been organized therein, in the course of which the said incident of quarrel had taken place. It was alleged that petitioner no.2 was present in the premises and introduced himself as the manager of the eating house. But, when he was questioned, interalia, about the licence for running the eating house, from the said premises, he showed his inability to do so referring in Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 2 of 10 this context to it being late hours of the night.
3. Petitioner no. 2 appeared, as directed by the complainant police officer, before the Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over the evening court on 14.03.2014 itself. The proceedings recorded by the learned Magistrate on the said date read as under: "14.03.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present.
Accused stated that he wants to plead guilty voluntarily for the offence punishable under Section 28/112 D. P. Act. He has been explained the consequence of the same, however, he feels sorry for the offence committed by him under Section 28/112 D. P. Act. Confession of accused has been recorded on a separate sheet of paper.
Heard and record perused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused stands admonished for the offence punishable under Section 28/112 D. P. Act.
SHO/IO is directed to file closure report for the next date of hearing i.e. 27.03.2014.
sd/ (Chetna Singh) Judge Evening Court No.1 14.03.2014"
4. File of the trial court shows that on the separate sheet statement of petitioner no.2 was recorded which reads as Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 3 of 10 under: "Statement of Saurabh Sharma s/o Sh.
Purshottam Sharma R/o E24, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi14. On SA.
I am the accused in case DD No bearing number 10A dated 13.2.2014 of Police Station Fatehpur Beri U/s 28/112 DP Act. I plead guilty voluntarily for the offence U/s 28/112 DP Act without any pressure, threat or coercion from any person. I pray for leniency.
ROAC Judge Evening Court No 1
14.03.2014."
5. As seen earlier, the magistrate held the petitioner no.2 guilty and released him after admonition but called for "closure report" from police.
6. Pursuant to the direction given in the order dated 14.03.2014, the local police subjected the hotel to sealing and submitted a report to this effect on 27.03.2014, whereupon the proceedings were drawn to a close vide order dated 28.03.2014.
7. It may be mentioned here that the trial court record indicates that the copy of a letter dated 13.02.2014 submitted by petitioner no.2 before SHO PS Fatehpuri Beri, interalia, stating that the Hotel does possess the requisite licence for running the eating house was submitted for perusal. It is clear Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 4 of 10 from proceedings recorded that this document was not taken note of.
8. The paper book submitted with the revision petition also contains the copy of the certificate of registration of the eating house issued on 23.06.2013 by Additional Commissioner of Police (Licencing) of Delhi Police in respect of the abovesaid premises, apparently under the provisions of Delhi Police Act. The said registration purports to be valid upto 31.03.2014, since renewed upto 31.03.2015 vide an endorsement dated 03.04.2014.
9. The petitioner no.1, which is the company that owns the hotel, had earlier preferred revision petition No.75/2014 questioning the direction of closure of the eating house against the above backdrop. The petitioner no.2 who had been sent as accused and on whose plea the conviction order was recorded with the directions of closure, however, had not been impleaded as a party. In this view, the said petition was allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner no.1 on 17.04.2014 vide order whereby liberty was granted for fresh petition to be filed.
10.The fresh petition filed jointly by both the petitioners Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 5 of 10 questions the procedure adopted by the learned magistrate in dealing with the kalandra. It also questions the propriety of the direction for the eating house to be closed against the backdrop of the claim that a valid registration certificate under Delhi Police Act subsists. It has been argued that in this view, the very foundation of the prosecution is missing.
11.The matter was considered on the last date of hearing when it was found that the trial court record, as submitted, would not clarify as to whether the accused was tried summarily or through summons trial procedure. In this view, an explanatory report as to the procedure adopted was called for from the magistrate.
12.The learned magistrate has submitted her explanatory report along with the file containing kalandra and the proceedings recorded in addition to the summary trial register of the evening court. The summary trial registrar shows that the matter was dealt with against entry no. 48 on 14.03.2014. In this register, under the column no. 6 (Parentage), the entry made reads "28/112 D.P.Act". Presumably, this entry was meant to be read against column no. 8, which pertains to "offence complained of or proved". The plea of the accused Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 6 of 10 thereon reads "I plead guilty" with his initials appended below.
13.I have heard Sh. N. P. Singh, advocate for the petitioner and Sh. Mohd. Zafar Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I have gone through the record in entirety.
14.There is no doubt that the Kalandra alleging offence under Section 28/112 D.P.Act may be treated summarily in as much as the maximum punishment that can be imposed is fine which may extend in the first instance upto Rs. 50/ only. The procedure of summary trial is governed by Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 262(1) makes it clear that in the summary trial, the procedure specified by the Code for the trial of summons cases shall be generally followed. Section 263 prescribes the record to be maintained for summary trials. The clause (f) thereof includes mention of the offence complained of as also the offence proved, if any.
15. In a criminal trial due notice of the accusations on which accused has been prosecuted is the hallmark of fair procedure. Section 262 Cr.P.C. refers to the procedure of trial of summons cases. Therefore, notice envisaged under Section Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 7 of 10 251 Cr.P.C. has to be read in the requirement of the summary trial procedure. Section 251 Cr.P.C. mandates that the trial must begin with the particulars of the offence for which accused is being prosecuted being stated to him and, thereafter, he being asked whether he pleads guilty or have any defence to make. Merely stating the number of the section prescribing the offence (28/112 D.P.Act) is not proper compliance with the requirements of Section 251 Cr.P.C.
16.The fact that the record does not show that accusations were explained to petitioner no.2, vitiates the proceedings conducted by the learned magistrate in the case at hand.
17. It must be added here that the learned magistrate has used rubber stamp impression for recording her orders for conviction against all the entries in the register of summary trial including the case at hand, only adding the word "admonished" in her own hand. This is against the general directions which have been issued from time to time. Use of rubber stamp impression for recording the operative part of the order in register of summary trial is improper and must be discouraged. It smacks of mechanical approach and non Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 8 of 10 application of mind.
18.The material on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner no.2 had brought it to the notice of the magistrate that he has been only a manager and the business of eating house is run by petitioner no.1. There was no notice to petitioner no.1 for showing cause against closure order. What is particularly noticeable is that there is no closure order. Yet, a report about closure was called for.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The kalandra is returned to the metropolitan magistrate for fresh consideration and further proceedings in accordance with law. Needless to add that while considering the proper action, the learned magistrate will first examine the propriety of the prosecution through kalandra in the face of the claim that a valid registration certificate of the eating house subsists.
20.In view of the above result of the revision petition, the SHO Police Station Fatehpur Beri is directed to remove his lock from the premises and handover the same to the rightful owner forthwith, pending further consideration of directions, if any required by the magistrate at the conclusion of the proceedings on the kalandra to be taken up hereafter. Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 9 of 10
21.The petitioners are directed to appear before the metropolitan magistrate on 22.05.2014, the date chosen by the counsel for petitioners.
22.The trial court record including summary trial register be sent back along with copy of this order. A copy of the order be also sent to SHO for compliance. A copy of the order be given dasti as prayed.
23.File of the criminal revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today on this 16th day of May, 2014. (R.K. GAUBA) District & Sessions Judge (South) Saket/New Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 82/2014 Trillion Motel Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State & anr. Page 10 of 10