Delhi District Court
M/S Print Wizard vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 6 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I : SPECIAL JUDGE-IV,
(PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CR No. 16/2016
ID No: 02401R0176022016
M/s Print Wizard
Through its Proprietor Pradeep Bajaj
At A-45, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II
Delhi. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.North Delhi Municipal Corporation
(Formerly known as Municipal Corporation of Delhi)
Factory Licensing Department,
14th Floor Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi 110002.
2.Jai Bhagwan , Area Inspector (FL)
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
(Formerly known as Municipal Corporation of Delhi)
Factory Licensing Department,
14th Floor Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi 110002.
3. Ms Saroj Sharma (AMP),
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
(Formerly known as Municipal Corporation of Delhi)
Factory Licensing Department,
14th Floor Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi 110002. ... Respondents
Date of Institution: 09.03.2016
Date of Arguments: 02.05.2016
Date of Judgment: 06.05.2016
ORDER
1.The order impugned vide this petition is dated 18.01.2016 vide which complaint filed CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 1 of 8 by the petitioner through its proprietor Pardeep Bajaj for taking cognizance against respondents for commission of offences under Sections 177/181/193/ 196/203/500/34 IPC was dismissed.
2.Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed challan against the petitioner alleging that on 7.7.2010, he was running printing press in violation of bye laws of MCD. Petitioner contested this challan after taking bail from the court. Prior to this, petitioner was having very good reputation in the eyes of his employees, however, after the said case his employees had left the job and denied to work with him. This has lowered his reputation before his clients, as a result of which his business had suffered. Because of this case, reputation of the complainant was badly tarnished in the eyes of his neighbours. In trial, respondents have failed to prove their case against the petitioner, as a result of that, Ld. trial court acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2013. It has been stated that accused no.2 and 3 had knowingly furnished false information before the court and both have deposed falsely in the court. In support of his case, petitioner has examined three witnesses. CW-1 Pradeep Bajaj is the sole proprietor of the petitioner. CW-2 Satwinder Singh and CW-3 Raju Singh are two public witnesses who have deposed that because of the notice pasted at the gate of the factory of the petitioner his work and reputation was affected. Vide impugned order dated 18.01.2016, the Ld. trial court dismissed this complaint, hence, this petition.
3.Heard arguments of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Ld. counsel for respondents. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. counsel for petitioner has filed certain documents on record and also filed written synopsis of his submissions. He relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in Centre for Police Research Vs. State [2007 Legal Eagle(DHC) 1137]. Perused the grounds of revision and trial court record.
4.It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that due to this false prosecution by the respondents, NDPL (electricity distribution company) had not issued new electricity CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 2 of 8 connection to the petitioner. It has been stated that because of this case, clients of the petitioner had shown their disinterest in dealing with him and made opinion that petitioner is running illegal business and this has lowered down his reputation before his clients as a result of which his business has suffered. It has been stated that because of this case reputation of the petitioner was badly tarnished in the eyes of his neighbours.
5.It has been stated that petitioner has taken RTI from North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), as per which respondent no.2 was very well present through out the day, on which the said challan was done, in his office. It has been stated that as per copy of the office order dated 16.6.2009 provided under RTI, respondent no. 2 was not at all posted in the area of Naraina in which premises of the petitioner is situated. It has been stated that all this proves that respondent no.2 intentionally without even visiting the premises wrongly challaned him as a result of which business and reputation of the petitioner got tarnished.
6. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that these documents filed by petitioner now cannot be looked into and petitioner was supposed to exhibit these documents in pre-summoning evidence before the Ld. trial court. It has been stated that even as per these documents attendance of respondent no.2 was marked which proves that he was on duty on that day and during the course of his duty, he has challaned the petitioner. It has been stated that the office order is dated 16.6.2009 but this challan is dated 7.7.2010.
7.It is further urged that petitioner was acquitted by the Ld. trial court after giving him benefit of doubt. It has been stated that even in March, 2010, petitioner was challaned for running printing press without any factory licence and at that time he had paid the fine.
8.CW-1 Pradeep Bajaj who is sole proprietor of the petitioner has deposed that in March, 2010 he was challaned for running the printing press without any factory licence CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 3 of 8 and he paid fine regarding the same. On 7.7.2010 he was again challaned whereas he was not running printing press as there was no electricity connection in the said premises. His landlord had disconnected his electricity connection some where in May, 2010. He was having generator but he was not using the same for printing work as he was not having any factory licence. He was getting orders but getting work done from outside, i.e. neighbouring press. On 7.7.2010, he was present in his factory premises since 9.30 AM to 8 PM on that day but no person came from MCD to check his premises. No printing press was running on the said date at his premises. He found copy of the said challan pasted on the gate of his factory on 9.7.2010 as he did not go to his office on 8.7.2010. He exhibited the certified copy of the challan as Ex. CW 1/2, certified copy of the judgment as Ex. CW 1/3 and certified copies of the testimonies of accused no.2 & 3 as Ex. CW 1/4.
9. CW-2 Satwinder Singh is running electrical shop at A-5, Narayana Industrial Area Phase-II is known to the petitioner. As per him on 8.7.2010 at about 9/9.30 AM he saw notice pasted on the gate of the factory of petitioner wherein it was mentioned that petitioner was not having any factory licence. Due to the said notice, petitioner got ill fame and lost clientage. Because of this notice, people started avoiding the petitioner after believing that he was not having any factory licence.
10. CW-3 Raju Singh is also working in printing line and was known to the petitioner having worked with him from May 2010 to August, 2010. As per him on 8.7.2010 he saw some paper in English pasted at the gate of office of the petitioner. He could not read English. Public told him that this challan is about light/electricity. Due to this notice people of the area started thinking that petitioner is doing illegal work.
11. Outrightly, it is mentioned that on account of non-compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the various allegations made by the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 177, 181, 193, 196 IPC cannot be considered. Regarding offence under Section 203 IPC, Ld. trial court has rightly observed that Section 203 IPC envisages a CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 4 of 8 condition where an offence has been committed but the person gives misleading the information regarding the same. Accordingly, allegations made in the complaint does not fit in the language of Section 203 IPC.
12. There remains only offence under Section 500 IPC, which this court has to see, if as per allegations in the complaint necessary ingredients of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC are there against the respondents or not.
13. Section 499 runs as follows:-
"499. Defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2. -It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or any association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. -An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."
14. There are 10 exceptions to this section. Eighth Exception is relevant for the CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 5 of 8 purpose of this case and the same runs as follows:-
"Eighth Exception.- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.- It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation ."
15. One of the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent no.2 and for that matter all the respondents intend to harm his reputation or they were knowing or having reason to believe that such false imputation by pasting the challan unauthorisedly done on the premises of petitioner will harm his reputation and defame him.
16. One of the contention raised by Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that Ld. trial court has wrongly observed that petitioner has not examined his employee Lal Dhari, as the petitioner was not having any employee with this name, so the question calling him as witness does not arise at all. It is relevant to mention here that in the order of acquittal of petitioner in MCD challan, in para 2 the court has discussed the submissions made by petitioner/accused before that court at the stage of final arguments. There it is found mentioned that as per submissions of the petitioner, Lal Dhari was not working with him on 7.7.2010 but he was employee at earlier point of time. The question to be considered is how respondent no.2 came to know about the name of this Lal Dhari. It is not the plea of the petitioner that in earlier challan of March, 2010 Lal Dhari was showing working in his factory premises and due to this reason, this time also name of Lal Dhari was mentioned.
17. The various documents filed by petitioner, given to him by respondent no.1 in response to his RTI applications, cannot be taken into consideration by this court at this stage. Whatsoever point the petitioner wants to establish through CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 6 of 8 these documents, he should have done the same before the Ld. trial court while leading pre-summoning evidence.
18. Perusal of judgment of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.2.2013 vide which petitioner was acquitted of the offences under Sections 416/417/430/461 DMC Act reveals that the main ground for acquittal was the defence of the petitioner that there was no electricity in the premises and machine was not running, was found probable. Though court has also discussed that from the facts established on record probability arises that the inspector might not have gone to the spot but there is no clear finding of the court in this context. For success in a criminal trial, prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. With the experience of this court, acquittals in criminal trials happens due to various reasons and from an acquittal inference of false prosecution cannot be drawn. As per prosecution case, petitioner was challaned by factory Inspector (R-2), who had visited the factory premises of the petitioner at A-45, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi on 7.7.2010 at about 3.50 PM and found the printing press running with power load of 10 H.P. approximately at the site without having any municipal licence in this regard, as per DMC Act. Except oral assertion, petitioner has failed to establish in any manner if respondent no.2 had not visited his factory premises on 7.7.2010 and he prepared the challan as alleged, without visiting his premises. Moreover, act of respondent no.2 gets duly covered under exception of Section 499 IPC.
19. In support of his submissions, Ld. counsel has relied upon observations made by the court in Centre for Policy Research Vs. State (supra). In this case accused had issued letters to Director, Enforcement & Income Tax Department. The letters contained false imputation and allegations against the complainant intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. Here as per facts of this case, CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 7 of 8 respondent no. 2 being factory Challaning Officer stated to have visited the factory of the petitioner on 7.7.2010 and had challaned the petitioner for various offences under DMC Act for running the factory without municipal licence. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. In view of the aforesaid reasons from the evidence led on record by the petitioner, it is not possible to infer if respondents and more specifically respondent no.2 had pasted the challan on the factory premises of the petitioner with intention to harm his reputation or having reason to believe that such imputation was false or to defame him. I find no illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, I find no substance in this revision petition. Same is, accordingly dismissed.
21.The Ld. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent back.
22. The file of the revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on 6th Day of May, 2016 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
CR No.16/2016 M/s Print Wizard Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors. Page 8 of 8