Delhi District Court
Delhi Development Authority And Anr vs Labour Enforcement Authority (C) New ... on 6 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06 : NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 558/2024
CNR NO. DLWT01-008249/2024
1. Delhi Development Authoirty
Through Director, Sports,
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Kishore Kshirsagar Lakshman
Commissioner (Sports),
Delhi Development Authority,
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi. .... Revisionist(s)
Versus
Labour Enforcement Officer (C) - 1, New Delhi
O/o Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Ground & First Floor,
Shramev Jayate Bhawan,
G-4, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075.
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.10.2024
Date of reserving order : 06.05.2026
Date of pronouncement : 06.05.2026
Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 1 of 7
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this Court shall dispose off the present revision petition filed by the revisionist(s)/accused persons under Section 438 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') assailing the order dated 31.08.2024 (herein after referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by Ld. Judge, Evening Court No. 2, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (herein after referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court') in case CC No. 40813/2024 titled as LEO Vs. DDA & Anr. whereby Ld. Trial Court summoned the accused persons/revisionists herein.
Arguments addressed on behalf of revisionists
2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists submitted that Ld. Trial Court passed the common summoning order in four different cases without mentioning the title of the cases; that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, which is bad in law; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent/complainant has not made the contractor as an accused; that Ld. Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as the proposed accused persons were not heard before taking the cognizance of the offences which is in violation of the provisions of Section 223 BNSS; that the sanction order is not passed as per mandates of law as the same does not reflects the names of the proposed accused persons.
Arguments addressed on behalf of respondent
3. Reply to present revision petition has been filed. Supporting the Impugned Order, Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that there is no infirmity and illegality done by the Ld. Trial Court and has rightly directed Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 2 of 7 to summon the accused persons; that a separate case was filed against the erring contractor; that Section 26 of the act clearly prescribes that Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act on a complaint made by or with the previous sanction in writing of the inspector; that since the offence was committed prior to enforcement of BNSS, the proposed accused was not required to be heard before taking cognizance of the offence; that the offences are minor in nature, hence, the procedure of hearing the proposed accused be done away with as the same has been done by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in offences under Section 138 N.I. Act; 3.1 To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon following judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India :
a. Case titled as Mohd. Hadi Raja Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 91; b. Crl. Appeal No. 503/2010 titled as B.S. N. L. Vs. Pramod V. Sawant (Dated 19.08.2019); and c. Crl. Appeal No. 1755/2010 titled as Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. : 2025 INSC 1158 (Dated 25.09.2025).
Impugned order
4. This Court heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and gone through the material available on record including Trial Court Court.
5. Before proceeding further, the Court finds it appropriate to reproduce the impugned order, whereby the Ld. Trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons, , which reads as under:
Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 3 of 7"F. No. :-46192/2024, 46200/24, 46215/24, 46196/24 LEO Vs. _______________________________ Fresh case received from the CMM office.
31.08.2024 Present : Mr. Abhishek Vyas, Ld. Counsel for the Department.
The examination of complainant is dispensed with as the complainant is a public servant and the complainant has been filed in his capacity as public servant.
The complainant and the documents have been perused. There is sufficient material on record to take cognizance of offence mentioned in the complaint under the provisions of Under Section 24 of CLRA Act, 1970. Issue summons against the accused, returnable on 04.10.2024.
(Akansha Garg) Judge Evening Court No. 02 PHC/NDD/31.08.2024"
Court's Observation
6. The first and foremost argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist(s)/accused persons is that they have not been heard before taking cognizance of the offence which is in violation of Section 223 of BNSS.
7. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 223 of BNSS which came into force 01.07.2024, reads as under :
"223. Examination of complainant.
"(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 4 of 7 the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212:
Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.
(2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless-
(a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and
(b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received."
8. A reading of aforesaid Section makes it abundant clear that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence based on a 'Complaint' Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 5 of 7 without offering an opportunity of hearing the proposed accused. The aforesaid provision mandates the issuance of a notice to the proposed accused before taking cognizance of an offence. The said requirement of affording said opportunity to accused is for representing his side even before cognizance marks a significant departure from traditional criminal procedure, where such a step was previously unheard of with aim to potentially minimising false implications and enabling him to avoid being summoned in baseless criminal cases.
9. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M. C. No. 1495/2025 titled as Brand Protectors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. (Dated 25.07.2025) , wherein it has been held that :
37. Thus, it may be concluded that Section 223 BNSS has reiterated the procedural framework of Section 200 Cr.P.C. with regard to examination of the Complainant and the witnesses, but has introduced significant departure that after the Complainant/ witnesses as the Court may desire has been recorded, an opportunity of being heard be given to the accused before cognizance is taken.
10. Adverting to the present case, the complaint was marked to Ld. Trial Court for 31.08.2024 when BNSS was already in force and the Ld. Trial Court dispensed with the examination of the complainant and took the cognizance of the offence on the same day without hearing the proposed accused and directed to summon them for the next date of hearing which is in total violation of the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 223 of the BNSS. Since the prescribed procedure has not been followed by Ld. Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 6 of 7
11. Even the sanction filed on record is without specific names of the persons against whom the sanction was granted. It has been rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the case law filed on behalf of the respondent with regard to Sanction 197 Cr. PC pertains to Public Sector Companies and Government Undertakings whereas the revisionist is a Government Servant.
Conclusion
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 is hereby set aside with directions to Ld. Trial Court to proceed with the matter as per the mandates of law.
13. Trial Court Record along with copy of this order be sent back to the Court concerned for compliance.
14. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.Digitally signed
SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON Pronounced in the open TANDON Date: 2026.05.06 15:01:46 +0530 Court on 06.05.2026 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -06, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, It is to certify that this order contains 07 pages and each page bears the signatures of the under signed. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:
2026.05.06 15:01:59 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -06, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, Crl. Revision No. 558/2024 D.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-1 Page 7 of 7