Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Singh on 22 January, 2026
Page 1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 145/2020
U/S 332/461 DMC ACT
PS: Mehrauli
STATE
VS.
RAM SINGH, S/o SUKHBIR SINGH,
R/O H. NO. B-26, CHATTARPUR EXTN, CHATTARPUR
VILLAGE, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. ...... ACCUSED
1. Sr. No. of the case : 2388/2020
2. The date of offence : 20.01.2020
3. The name of the complainant : DC MCD
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 22.01.2026
6. The final order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Ram Singh ("Accused") is facing trial on the allegations that on 20.01.2020 at property bearing no.B-302, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS- Mehrauli, the accused being builder/occupier/owner of the said property was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of stilt to first floor without permission/sanction from the concerned authority of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Thus, the accused was booked under the Section 332 r/w 461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act).
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:04:53 +0530 Page 2 of 10 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused was summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused was charged u/s 332 r/w 461 DMC Act and accordingly, the charge was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, (Record Clerk, MCD) was a summoned witness and produced the UC File No. 35/UC/B-II/SZ/2020, dt. 20.01.2020 out of which he brought documents such as FIR, dt. 20.01.2020 vide Ex.PW1/A, Show cause notice u/s 343/344(1) DMC Act, dt. 20.01.2020 vide Ex.PW1/B, Permission for issuance of demolition notice u/s 343 DMC Act, dt. 28.01.2020 vide Ex.PW1/C, Order of demolition, dt. 28.01.2020 vide Ex.PW1/D, Internal noting regarding demolition order, dt. 07.02.2020 vide Ex.PW1/E. He supplied the certified copies of the above-mentioned documents to the IO of this case. The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
4. PW-2 Sh. Santosh Gupta (the then JE) has deposed that on 20.01.2020, during routine inspection, he reached property bearing no. B-302, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi, and noticed unauthorized construction at the said property in the shape of stilt, ground floor, and first floor. Upon reaching the office, he prepared an FIR and placed it before the concerned AE vide Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, a show cause notice under Sections 344(1) and 343 of the DMC Act was issued against the owner/builder vide Ex.PW1/B. He went to the property to serve the said notice; however, no one was present at the site. Consequently, the notice was served by way of pasting. As no Digitally signed by FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22
17:04:59
+0530
Page 3 of 10
reply to the said show cause notice was received, he reported the matter to the concerned AE. On 28.01.2020, he requested the concerned AE to issue a demolition notice/order under Section 343 of the DMC Act to the owner/builder of the said property vide Ex.PW1/C. Accordingly, a second notice/demolition order was issued to the owner/builder of the property vide Ex.PW1/D. The said notice was also served by way of pasting. Thereafter, on 07.02.2020, a demolition order was passed vide Ex.PW1/E. By following the due process of law, the unauthorized construction file of the said property was handed over to the office in-charge for further necessary action as per the policy of priority. He also initiated the prosecution file, and upon the complaint of the witness, a complaint under Sections 332/461 of the DMC Act read with Section 466A was filed by the concerned DC on 14.02.2020 before the SHO, PS Mehrauli. Thereafter, an FIR was registered. IO/HC Ramesh Kumar called him, and he visited the said site and informed the IO about the said property. The IO prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, the IO recorded his statement. The witness was not cross- examined despite opportunity. Thus, the statement of PW-2 Santosh Gupta remain unrebutted.
5. PW-3 ASI Ramesh (IO of this case) has deposed that on 16.03.2020, a complaint under Sections 332/461 of the DMC Act was received from MCD and the same was marked to him by the SHO. He endorsed the complaint and got the FIR registered on 16.03.2020 vide Ex.PW3/A. He received all relevant documents pertaining to the case and called JE Sh. Santosh Pathak to join the investigation. Thereafter, on 18.03.2020, he met JE Sh. Santosh Pathak at property bearing no. B-302, Chhatarpur Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:02 +0530 Page 4 of 10 Extension, New Delhi. The JE pointed out the said property and informed him that unauthorized construction had taken place at the said property. At the instance of the JE, he prepared the site plan of the property vide Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of JE Sh. Santosh Pathak under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, accused Ram Singh disclosed that he was the owner of the property in question. He served notice upon the accused under Section 41A Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW3/B. He bound down the accused and interrogated him, during which the accused stated that he had been constructing the house without permission from MCD. The said disclosure statement is Ex.PW3/C. At the instance of the accused, he prepared a pointing-out memo vide Ex.PW3/D. The accused produced his property documents, which were taken into custody by him through a seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. He wrote a letter to the DC, South Zone, MCD seeking permission under Section 467 of the DMC Act. He recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After obtaining the requisite permission, he completed the investigation and prepared the charge-sheet under Sections 332/461 of the DMC Act, which was submitted before the concerned Court. The witness has been duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
6. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted the present FIR as Ex.AD1, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.AD2, Complaint u/s 466A DMC Act as Ex.AD3 and Complaint u/s 467 DMC Act as Ex.AD4. In view of the same, remaining witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution evidence concluded.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22
17:05:07
+0530
Page 5 of 10
7. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that he is innocent and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused wished not to lead defence evidence.
8. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
9. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
''Whether on 20.01.2020 at property bearing no.B-302, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Mehrauli, the accused being builder/occupier/owner of the said property was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of stilt to first floor without permission/sanction from the concerned authority of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Thus, the accused was booked under the Section 332 r/w 461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957."
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused and hence prayed for conviction of accused as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
11. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:11 +0530 Page 6 of 10 Ld. Counsel submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove that accused has raised the said alleged unauthorized construction. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused, hence, he liable to be get acquitted from all charges.
12. In the present case accused is charged under Section 332 r/w 461 DMC Act. Before appreciating the evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:
332. Prohibition of building without sanction: - 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
461. Punishment for certain offences: (1) Whoever--
(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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:15 +0530 Page 7 of 10 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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) of section 317 or sub-section (1) of section 320 or sub-section (1) of section 321 or subsection (1) of section 325 or section 339, in relation to any street which is a public street, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
13. Section 332 lays down that no person shall erect or commence to erect any building except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, or otherwise than in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVI and of the bye-law make under the Act in relation to the erection of buildings. The MCD has been empowered to discourage, prevent and stop illegal and unauthorized building and construction activities under Sections 343,344,345,345-A,346 and 347 of the Act to demolish and stop the building work, require alteration or work and seal unauthorized construction. In view of the same, the MCD has endowed with ample powers to discourage, prevent and stop illegal and unauthorized construction. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:18 +0530 Page 8 of 10
14. Further, it is clear from a plain reading of Section 332 of the Act that in order that a person may be proved guilty of having committed the offence mentioned therein, the prosecution will have to prove that such person either "erected" or "commenced to erect" any building or any works without previous sanction or in a manner not authorized by the Act. Further, what is critical is that the person who is sought to be bound guilty should himself have either erected or commenced to erect the unauthorized construction. The mere presence of a person at the spot may not satisfy this requirement. This Court places its reliance on MCD vs Prakash, 148 (2008) Delhi Law Times 587.
15. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, being in the capacity of builder/occupier/owner of the property in question was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of stilt to first floor without any sanction from concerned Commissioner of MCD.
16. In view of this court and as discussed above, the prosecution is not only required to prove that the accused is the owner/occupier/builder of the property in question, but the accused has erected or commenced to erect the said unauthorized construction.
17. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Inspecting Officer Santosh Gupta who has deposed that he booked the property in question for raising unauthorized construction in the shape of stilt to first floor. Thus, he initiated the prosecution and prepared First Hand Report vide Ex.PW1/A. He issued show cause notice u/s 344(1) and 343 of DMC Act vide Ex.PW1/B and the notice was served by way of pasting. Thereafter, at his instance, concerned AE issued demolition order and the same Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22
17:05:22
+0530
Page 9 of 10
was served vide Ex.PW1/D and the same was served by way of pasting. As per instruction, he initiated the prosecution file qua the accused and got present FIR registered through concerned DC, South Zone, MCD. It is also clear that the property was traceable and concerned show cause notices were brought to the knowledge of the owner/builder/occupier. The witness was not cross-examined by the accused, thus, the statement of PW-2 Santosh Gupta remains unrebutted. Further, the statement of PW- 2 duly supported by documentary evidence placed by PW-1. The prosecution has successfully shifted the onus of proof upon the accused.
18. Furthermore, PW-3 ASI Ramesh has deposed that he collected all the relevant documents from MCD. He met the JE Santosh Gupta at property in question. On pointing out, he visited the property in question and prepared site plan at the instance of PW-2 vide Ex.PW2/A. On inquiry, he got to know that accused Ram Singh is the owner of the property in question. During investigation, he seized the property document vide Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. The witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the accused, but there is no contradiction or variation found in his statement. Thus, the statement of PW-3 duly supported by documentary evidence has successfully shifted the onus of proof upon the accused.
19. The witnesses examined by prosecution clearly shows that the accused is owner of the property in question. Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW3/E also supports the version of prosecution. It is also to be noted the accused has not disputed the factum of the construction of the property. The documentary evidence clearly Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:25 +0530 Page 10 of 10 proves that the construction raised at property in question is an unauthorized construction raised without permission concerned authority of MCD. This Court has no reason to not to believe the statement of witnesses.
20. Thus, in view of above discussion it is established that accused has commence to erect/erected unauthorized construction at property in question without the previous sanction of the Commissioner of MCD and has committed offence under section 332 DMC Act punishable under Section 461 of the Act.
21. Thus, in the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances and material available on record, the prosecution has proved the charges u/s 332/461 DMC Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Ram Singh, S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 332/461 DMC Act.
22. Let the copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Let the convict be heard on point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.01.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO TEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
Digitally signedASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2026.01.22 17:05:30 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH), NEW DELHI/22.01.2026 FIR No: 145/2020 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Ram Singh