Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Naseem Ors on 20 April, 2026
22
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL JAIN
JMFC-01 (SOUTH-EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
Old Cr. Case No. 95348/2016
Cr Cases No. 440/2016
STATE Vs. MOHD. NASEEM ORS
FIR No. 929/2015
PS Jamia Nagar
U/s 332/461 DMC Act
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence : 27.08.2014 Date of institution of case : 10.06.2016 Date of reserving judgment : 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.04.2026 Name of complainant :Deputy Commissioner , MCD Name & address of accused : 1. Mohd. Naseem S/o Sabbir Ahmad
2. Faisal Ateem S/o Qamar Faizal
3. Shariq S/o Syed Zaheer Hashmi Offences complained of / proved : 332/461 DMC Act Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial Final order : Acquitted FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:54:21
+0530
22
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL JAIN
RAHUL Date:
FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem JAIN
PS Jamia Nagar 2026.04.22
17:54:25
+0530
22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prosecution Story.......................................................3 Filing of Charge-sheet and Framing of Notice........3 Prosecution Evidence.................................................4 Documents Admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and Statement of Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.....10 Submissions of the Ld. APP and Ld. Counsel for the Accused.....................................................................11 Legal Principles........................................................13 Analysis and Findings..............................................16 Conclusion................................................................19 Digitally FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia NagarRAHUL signed by RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22 17:54:31 +0530 22 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE PROSECUTION STORY
1. PROSECUTION STORY The prosecution case, short of unnecessary details but stated in some elaboration, is that prior to 27.08.2014, at some unknown date and time, all three accused, namely Mohd.
Naseem, Faisal Aleem and Sarig, being owners/occupiers of property bearing no. A-17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jamia Nagar, carried out unauthorized construction of the second floor in continuation of previous unauthorized construction, in contravention of the provisions of section 332 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, punishable under section 461 of the said Act. It is the further case of the prosecution that despite service of notice by the office of the complainant under sections 343/344 DMC Act, directing removal of the illegal construction, the accused persons failed to remove the same and thus willfully disobeyed the lawful order of the public authority. On this basis, it is alleged that the accused thereby committed offences punishable under sections 332/461 DMC Act as well as under section 188 IPC, the latter being for disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant, and that the said acts fall within the cognizance of this Court.
2. CHARGE AND COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL Upon conclusion of investigation, a police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused persons for Digitally FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:54:38
+0530
22
offences punishable under sections 461 DMC Act and 188 IPC. Copy of the charge-sheet along with all relied upon documents was supplied to the accused in compliance with section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were furnished with sufficient opportunity to inspect the record. On the basis of the material in the charge- sheet and after hearing Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused, notice/charge was framed against all the three accused for offences under sections 461 DMC Act and 188 IPC the notice under sections 332/461 DMC Act and section 188 IPC was read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses :-
3.1. PW-1 HC Pramod deposed that on 01.07.2015 he was posted as Head Constable at PS Jamia Nagar and was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. On that day, a rukka was handed over to him by HC Farooq Ahmed, on the basis of which he made his endorsement, proved as Ex. PW1/A, and registered the FIR, copy of which he proved as Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to HC Farooq Ahmed for investigation and also issued a certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act, proved as Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signatures at point A. In cross-
Digitally signed by FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia NagarRAHUL RAHUL JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.04.22 17:54:43 +0530 22 examination, he stated that he could not tell the duration between the previous FIR and the present FIR, nor could he tell who was working as Duty Officer before or after him on that day or the exact time when the rukka was handed over to him. He clarified that the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of SDMC and denied the suggestion that the FIR was registered at the instance of the IO or that it had been falsely registered against the accused persons.
3.2. PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmed deposed that on 01.07.2015 he was posted as Head Constable at PS Jamia Nagar and was on beat duty. After registration of the FIR, the copy of FIR and rukka were handed over to him by the Duty Officer on the directions of the SHO for carrying out investigation. He stated that he issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. to SDMC for supply of requisite documents, the said notice being Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point A, and that in response, SDMC supplied the documents, which were taken on record as Mark A (colly). On perusal of those documents, the name of the suspect was revealed as Abrar Khan, while the name of the owner of the property in question was revealed as Mohd. Nasim.
He further deposed that he thereafter issued notice to the owner of the property for supply of the agreement to sell, builder- owner collaboration agreement and electricity bill copies of agreement to sell, affidavit, GPA and collaboration agreement were taken on record as Mark B, C, D and E (colly), and the original electricity bill was proved as Ex. PW2/B. He stated that FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:54:45 +0530 22 accused Mohd. Naseem gave a written reply admitting that he was the owner of property no. A-17/A-15, which was proved as Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D. According to him, the complaint of SDMC was initially against accused Abrar Khan in respect of property A-17, Okhla Vihar however, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the property in question was A- 15, Okhla Vihar, and in his written reply the accused admitted that property nos. A-15 and A-17 were numbers of the same property.
He further deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of JE Raj Kumar, proved as Ex. PW2/E (as per record) bearing his signatures, and recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also stated that he had taken photographs of the property in question when he inspected the spot and that two photographs on record were correctly identified by him he deposed that the property consisted of four floors along with a basement and the photographs were exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly).
In his detailed cross-examination, he stated that he had not taken any complaint dated 27.08.2014 which was sent by PS Jamia Nagar to SDMC and clarified that such complaints are usually sent by the concerned beat official through the SHO to SDMC and ACP. He admitted that complaint Ex. PW3/A was sent by the Dy. Commissioner, SDMC on 25.06.2015 and that the FIR was registered on 01.07.2015 on the basis of that complaint. He further admitted that initially the FIR was registered under sections 332/461 DMC Act and that section 188 IPC was invoked FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:54:48 +0530 22 at the time of filing of charge-sheet, though he denied the suggestion that there was no evidence for the offence under section 188 IPC and that the section was invoked only to cover delay in filing the charge-sheet. He admitted that the collaboration agreement Mark B and the electricity bill Ex. PW2/B bear the address of the property as A-15, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar. He also deposed that on local inquiry he had met accused Mohd. Naseem, who pointed out the property in question and stated that the same did not belong to Abrar, and that no property bearing no. A-17 could be found in the nearby area on his inquiry. He denied suggestions of improper investigation, collusion with any owner of property A-17 or false implication of the present accused.
3.3. PW-3 Ms. A. Mona Sreenivas deposed that on 25.06.2015 she was posted as Deputy Commissioner, SDMC, Central Zone, New Delhi and on that day she made a complaint to PS Jamia Nagar against accused Abrar regarding unauthorized construction of second floor at property A-17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, as reported by JE (Buildings) Raj Kumar the complaint is Ex. PW3/A bearing her signatures at point A. She further deposed that prior to her complaint, a complaint had been received from PS Jamia Nagar vide letter dated 27.08.2014 regarding unauthorized construction at the said property, and the same was marked to JE Raj Kumar who, upon inspection and report, led to the filing of complaint Ex. PW3/A. She also deposed that during the course of proceedings, on FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:54:54
+0530
22
05.01.2016, she made a complaint under section 467 DMC Act to the learned Magistrate against accused Abrar, owner-builder, regarding unauthorized construction in the shape of basement, ground, first, second, third and fourth floors at the property in question the said complaint is Ex. PW3/B, bearing her signatures at point A. On 10.02.2016, she made another complaint under section 467 DMC Act against accused Abrar for unauthorized construction on the second floor of the same property in continuation of booking dated 01.04.2015, proved as Ex. PW3/C bearing her signatures at point A. In cross-
examination, she admitted that complaint Ex. PW3/A bears her signatures and that she had given permission/complaint vide letter dated 05.01.2016 against Mr. Abrar as owner- builder/occupier of property no. A-17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, and she denied the suggestion of false deposition.
3.4. PW-4 Raj Kumar deposed that on 15.05.2015 he was posted as Junior Engineer Bldg-I, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi, and on that day he inspected the area of Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar where he found that unauthorized construction work was going on at the third floor of property A- 17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar. He prepared FIR No. 473BUCEEBCNZ/15 dated 15.05.2015, which is Ex. PW4/A (OSR), bearing his signatures at point A, and with the approval of the Assistant Engineer, he issued notice dated 15.05.2015 to the owner-builder Abrar, proved as Ex. PW4/B (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A. As no reply was received, he submitted the FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:54:57 +0530 22 matter to the Assistant Engineer for issuing demolition notice under sections 343/344 DMC Act, which notice dated 01.06.2015 is Ex. PW4/C (OSR) and Ex. PW4/D (OSR), bearing his signatures at point A, and thereafter he submitted a report dated 15.06.2015 for issuance of demolition order, proved as Ex.
PW4/E (OSR), bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he brought the originals of Mark A (colly), which were then exhibited as Ex. PW4/F (colly) running into seven pages (OSR), and that he had also visited the property along with police officials where the site plan was prepared at his instance. In cross-examination on 05.09.2018 and subsequently on recall under section 311 Cr.P.C. on 24.01.2024, he stated that as per the letter/complaint/permission under section 467 DMC Act dated 05.01.2016 (Ex. PW3/B), JE R.P. Singh had reported that Abrar was owner-builder/occupier of property A-17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, and had carried out unauthorized construction thereon he admitted that the first inspection was conducted on 04.04.2014 at the said property and that the Dy. Commissioner made complaint dated 25.06.2015 to PS Jamia Nagar (Ex. PW3/A).
He further admitted that there is no document on record specifically showing that he himself visited the property on 15.05.2015, that during inspection he did not take photographs, and that there is no document on record to show that he was on duty on 15.05.2015 however, he denied the suggestion that he never inspected the property and asserted that he was on routine inspection, found labour working at the site, and that the building FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22 17:55:00 +0530 22 was being constructed in an unauthorized manner. He also stated that on local inquiry it was found that the property belonged to Abrar and that as per official documents the property in question is A-17 he identified the photographs Ex. P-1 (colly) as those of the property where unauthorized construction was being carried out. He denied suggestions that he prepared the file while sitting in his office or that he did not follow proper procedure in issuing show-cause notices and demolition order. 3.5. PW-5 - V.D. Vashisht (Sanctioning/Competent Officer) PW-5 V.D. Vashisht was examined as a competent officer in relation to the municipal record. He deposed, inter alia, that Ex.
PW4/F (colly) (OSR) was dated 04.04.2014 and that the receipt of speed post for sending show-cause notice and the copy of demolition order were matters of record. He stated that he himself did not visit the alleged property but that proper procedure was followed in the present case, as reflected in the record file, and that he had gone through all documents put up before him by the concerned JE. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestions that proper procedure was not followed in issuing show-cause notice and demolition order or that he was deposing falsely.
4. DOCUMENTS ADMITTED UNDER SECTION 294 CR.P.C. AND STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. 4.1. Certain documents, being primarily municipal and police record, were admitted by the accused under section 294 Cr.P.C., thereby dispensing with the formal proof of those documents.
Digitally FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:02
+0530
22
4.2. The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. after the prosecution evidence, and all incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence were put to them. In their statements, they denied all allegations, stated that they had not carried out any unauthorized construction in violation of the DMC Act or any order of the municipal authorities, and asserted that they have been falsely implicated. They further stated, in substance, that the property for which municipal action was initiated was different from the property in their occupation and that they did not disobey any lawful order promulgated by a public servant. The accused did not opt to lead any defence evidence.
5. ARGUMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE 5.1. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that the complaint under section 467 DMC Act is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of section 471 DMC Act, which mandates that complaint must be filed within six months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the offence to the complainant authority. It was submitted that in the present case the complaint from SDMC to SHO regarding unauthorized construction is dated 25.06.2015, whereas the complaint dated 05.01.2016 was filed before the learned Magistrate only on 10.06.2016 along with the charge-sheet, and therefore the complaint is beyond the prescribed period, FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia NagarRAHUL Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:05 +0530
22
rendering the prosecution under the DMC Act unsustainable. Ld. counsel further contended that the property which was originally booked and in respect of which municipal record stands is A-17, Okhla Vihar, whereas accused Naseem resides at property A-15, which, according to the defence, was already constructed, and that the photographs Ex. P-1 (colly) do not pertain to the property of the accused. It was thus urged that the identity of the property is doubtful, that the mandatory period of limitation has been breached, and that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
5.2. Per contra, Ld. APP for the State submitted that the procedure prescribed under law was duly followed by both the municipal authorities and the investigating agency, and that there is sufficient material on record to show that the accused persons are responsible for the unauthorized construction. It was argued that accused Faisal and Sarai (Sharig) admitted constructing property A-15 and that accused Naseem admitted residing at that property, and that in cases of unauthorized constructions no formal municipal numbers are assigned, the occupants often changing or manipulating the numbering to evade liability. Ld. APP submitted that the municipal and police record, including the reply of accused Naseem, clearly indicates that property nos. A-15 and A-17 refer to the same structure and that the complaint dated 05.01.2016, when read in conjunction with previous municipal actions and continuing nature of the construction, is within limitation. He therefore prayed for conviction of all the accused for the offences under section 461 DMC Act and section FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:55:08 +0530 22 188 IPC.
6. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 6.1. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice the relevant legal provisions.
Section 188 IPC reads as under :-
"Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both, and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to Digitally FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:21
+0530
22
produce, harm."
6.2. The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 188 IPC are :-
(i) there must be an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,
(ii) the accused must have knowledge of such order,
(iii) the accused must disobey such direction by doing an act prohibited or omitting to do an act required, and
(iv) such disobedience must cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk thereof, to a person lawfully employed, or must cause or tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray.
6.3. Section 332 DMC Act provides as under:
"No person shall erect or commence to erect any building or execute any of the works specified in section 334 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, not otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and of the bye- laws made under this Act in relation to the erection of buildings or execution of works."
6.4. Section 461 DMC Act provides as under :-
Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, titled "Punishment for certain offences", reads in material part as under:
"461. Punishment for certain offences.--(1) Whoever--
Digitally signed by FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:24
+0530
22
(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub-
sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Table in the Twelfth Schedule or
(b) fails to comply with any order or direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions, shall be punishable--
(i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that behalf in the third column of the said Table or with both and
(ii) in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to the amount specified in the fourth column of that Table for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure."
Thus, to attract section 461 DMC Act, the prosecution must show that there has been either a contravention of one of the specified provisions in the Twelfth Schedule, such as building regulations including section 332, or a failure to comply with an order or direction lawfully given under those provisions, and that such contravention or failure has been committed by the accused persons.
6.5. Section 471 DMC Act Section 471 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Digitally FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:27
+0530
22
provides for limitation for prosecution of offences under the Act and, in substance, lays down that no prosecution for any offence punishable under the Act shall be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date of commission of the offence, or where the commission or continuance of the offence was not known to the Commissioner or the person aggrieved, after the expiry of six months from the date on which such commission or continuance first came to the knowledge of the Commissioner or such person. The provision further clarifies that in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.
7. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 7.1. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused, perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and examined the entire record, including the municipal documents and police papers. The first and foremost issue which arises for consideration is the question of limitation under section 471 DMC Act, as argued on behalf of the accused, vis-a-vis the nature of the alleged offence and the dates of municipal complaints and filing of complaint before the learned Magistrate. From the record, it is evident that the earliest complaint in relation to unauthorized construction at property A-17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, emanated from PS Jamia Nagar vide letter dated 27.08.2014, which was marked to JE Raj Kumar and led to FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:55:33 +0530 22 the initial inspection dated 04.04.2014 as deposed by PW-3 and PW-4. Thereafter, JE Raj Kumar prepared FIR no. 473BUCEEBCNZ/15 on 15.05.2015, and notices and demolition orders under sections 343/344 DMC Act were processed, culminating in the Dy. Commissioner's complaint dated 25.06.2015 to PS Jamia Nagar (Ex. PW3/A), on the basis of which FIR No. 929/2015 was registered on 01.07.2015.
Subsequently, complaints under section 467 DMC Act were made on 05.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 against Abrar as owner- builder, which, as per defence, were filed before the Court on 10.06.2016 along with the charge-sheet.
7.2. In view of section 471 DMC Act, the prosecution is required to show that the complaint in respect of the offence under the DMC Act was instituted within six months from the date of commission of the offence or the date of knowledge thereof. The material on record reveals that the office of the complainant, i.e. the then Dy. Commissioner, MCD, had knowledge of the alleged offence at least on 27.08.2014 when the information regarding the unauthorized construction was received in her office. The first complaint before the Magistrate is dated 05.01.2016, which is clearly beyond six months from 27.08.2014. Therefore, the prosecution is barred by limitation under section 471 DMC Act, and the reasoning based on continued offence is not being accepted in the present case.
7.3. The second aspect is the identity of the property and the FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar RAHUL Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN Date: JAIN 2026.04.22 17:55:36 +0530 22 connection of the present accused with the offending construction. The municipal and police record consistently refers to property no. A-17, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, whereas the electricity bills, collaboration agreement and some defence contentions emphasize property no. A-15. PW-2 has stated that in his written reply accused Mohd. Naseem admitted that A-15 and A-17 are numbers of the same property and that during local inquiry no property bearing no. A-17 was found distinct from the premises pointed out by accused Naseem. However, the municipal record, including JE's inspection, does not incorporate independent documentary material clarifying the equivalence of A-15 and A-17 beyond such oral assertion, nor is there any contemporaneous municipal order formally correcting or reconciling the numbering.
7.4. Further, the prosecution has proceeded on the initial complaint and booking against Abrar as owner-builder-occupier, whereas the present accused are sought to be fastened with criminal liability without a clear and unbroken chain of evidence showing transfer of responsibility or direct role in carrying out the unauthorized construction after service of relevant notices. PW-4 candidly admits that there is no document showing his duty or visit on 15.05.2015 and that no photographs were taken by him at that time PW-5 did not visit the property at all and merely relied on the file put up by the JE. PW-2's photographs are relied upon, but it is admitted that the fact of taking photographs from his mobile is not mentioned in the charge- sheet, and there is contest regarding whether the photographs FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:39
+0530
22
actually depict the property of the accused. 7.5. In order to bring home the charge under section 461 DMC Act, read with the relevant building provisions, the prosecution was required to establish not only the fact of unauthorized construction but also that such construction was carried out or continued by the accused, in violation of the DMC Act and in non-compliance of lawfully issued municipal orders. Likewise, for section 188 IPC, the prosecution was obliged to prove the promulgation of a specific order by a competent public servant, knowledge of such order on the part of the accused, and deliberate disobedience of that order causing or tending to cause obstruction or danger as contemplated by the section. In the present case, while there is material to show that municipal notices were issued and that unauthorized construction was detected, the link evidence establishing service and knowledge of a specific order on each of the present accused, and willful disobedience thereof, is not of the quality required in a criminal trial.
7.6. In the backdrop of the above, coupled with the serious contention regarding limitation under section 471 DMC Act and the absence of unimpeachable evidence to prove the offence within the period prescribed by law, substantial doubt arises both on the maintainability of the prosecution under the DMC Act and on the proof of essential ingredients of the offences under section 461 DMC Act and section 188 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia NagarRAHUL RAHUL signed by JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.22
17:55:43
+0530
22
8. CONCLUSION
8.1. In the light of the discussion under the preceding , and having regard to the statutory scheme of sections 461 and 471 DMC Act as well as section 188 IPC, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish, to the standard of proof required in criminal law, that the present accused are guilty of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
8.2. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted for offence punishable u/s 461 DMC Act and 188 IPC.
9. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:55:47 +0530 Announced in open court (RAHUL JAIN) on i.e. 20.04.2026 JMFC-01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi/20.04.2026 FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar 22 Old Cr. Case No. 95348/2016 Cr Cases No. 440/2016 STATE Vs. MOHD. NASEEM ORS FIR No. 929/2015 PS Jamia Nagar U/s 332/461 DMC Act I. List of Prosecution Witnesses :-
PW Name of Witness Description / Role No. PW 1 PW-1 HC Pramod DO PW 2 PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad IO PW3 Ms. A.Mona Sreenivas Complainant PW4 JE Raj Kumar Witness PW5 V.D.Vashisht Executive Engineer To verity documents II. List of Exhibited Documents :-
Exhibit No. Description of Document Proved by / Admitted by Ex. PW1/A Endorsement on the Rukka PW-1 HC Pramod Ex.PW1/B FIR PW-1 HC Pramod Ex. PW1/C Certificate U/s 65B of IEA PW-1 HC Pramod Ex. PW2/A Notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad Ex. PW2/B Original Bill of electricity PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad Ex. PW2/C Admission of accused Mohd. Naseem PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad Ex. PW2/D Admission of accused Mohd.Naseem PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad Ex. PW2/C Site Plan PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad Ex.P1(colly) Photographs PW-2 ASI Farooq Ahmad Ex. PW3/A Complaint Ms. A.Mona Sreenivas Ex. PW3/B Complaint Ms. A.Mona Sreenivas Ex. PW3/C Complaint Ms. A.Mona Sreenivas Ex. PW4/A FIR JE Raj Kumar Ex. PW4/B Approval of AE JE Raj Kumar Ex. PW4/C Demolition Order JE Raj Kumar FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date: JAIN JAIN 2026.04.22 17:55:51 +0530 22 Ex. PW4/D Second Notice JE Raj Kumar Ex. PW4/E Report of AE JE Raj Kumar Ex. PW4/F Original of Mark A JE Raj Kumar Ex.PW5/A Notice to Delhi Jal Board and BSES V.D.Vashisht Executive Engineer Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.22 17:55:56 +0530 FIR No.929/2015 State Vs. Mohd. Naseem PS Jamia Nagar