Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Chand Yadav on 21 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI : MM, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. RAMESH CHAND YADAV
DD No.5A
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 28/112 Delhi Police Act
JUDGMENT :
1. Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 18/2007 & 01.11.07
2. Date of commission of offence : 26.10.2007
3. Name of the complainant : State through S.I. Rajesh Maurya
4. Name of the accused : Ramesh Chand Yadav S/o Sh. Hoti Lal Yadav R/o Village Semra, P.S. Ginnaur, Distt. Badayun, U.P.
5. Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act
6. Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted
8. Date of such order : 21.02.2012 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the accused Ramesh Chand Yadav is facing trial for the offence U/Sec.
28/112 Delhi Police Act, 1978 on the allegations that on 26.10.2007 at about 11.30 a.m. at Yadav Dhaba, Near Bhairon Mandir, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, the accused was found running an eating house under the name and style of "Yadav Dhaba" without any licence and thus committed an offence U/Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act, 1978.
2. When the Kalandra U/Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act, 1978 was filed in the Court, the accused stated that he wanted to contest the same and thus he was released on bail by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 01.11.2007. After supplying the copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., a notice U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused on 20.09.2008 for the offence punishable U/Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined two witnesses in the P.E. i.e. PW1 Ct. Jaswant and PW2 S.I. Rajesh Maurya.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2012 in which he pleaded innocence but admitted that on 26.10.2007 at about 11.30 a.m. at Yadav Dhaba, near Bhairon Mandir, New Delhi he was found running an eating house under the name and style of "Yadav Dhaba" without any license or permit. However he said that he has closed the said Dhaba and has left Delhi and now living at his native place.
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. Substitute APP Sh.N.K. Kajur. But the counsel for accused did not appear to address arguments and therefore matter was adjourned for today for order while granting liberty to defence counsel to address arguments on or before the next date of hearing i.e. today. But even till today the counsel for accused has not appeared to address arguments. I have perused the entire record.
6. Let us see the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of prosecution i.e. PW1 is Ct. Jaswant who has deposed that on 26.10.2007 he was posted as constable at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day at about 11.30 a.m. he found the accused running an eating house in the name and style of "Yadav Dhaba" near Bhairon Mandir, New Delhi without any valid license from MCD, Delhi Police and/or any other competent authority. He further deposed that S.I. Rajesh Maurya reached the spot and he was made acquainted with the facts of the case and accused was challaned vide challan Ex.PW1/A.
7. PW2 is S.I. Rajesh Maurya who has deposed that on 26.10.2007, he was posted as SubInspector at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he left for area patrolling at 9.25 a.m. vide DD No.5A and during patrolling, beat Constable Jaswant met him and he took him alongwith him for patrolling and at around 11.30 a.m. when they reached near Bhairon Mandir, Traffic Office, accused was found running an eating house in the name and style of "Yadav ka Dhaba". He has further deposed that the accused was asked to produce the valid license to run the eating house but he could not produce the same and therefore he was challaned vide Kalandra Ex.PW1/A. He has exhibited the photograph of the Dhaba as Ex.P1.
8. The accused has been challaned and tried for the offence punishable U/Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act. As per Sec.28(za) of the Delhli Police Act, the Commissioner of Police may by notification in the Official Gazette make regulations for registration of eating houses including grant of certificate of registration of eating houses. If a person running an eating house fails to obtain the certificate of registration under the Delhi Police Act, then he may be convicted under Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act. Thus in the present case the accused could be held guilty for the offence under Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act if he had not obtained the certificate of registration for the eating house/restaurant run by him. For holding him guilty U/Sec. 28/112 Delhi Police Act, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was running his eating house i.e. "Yadav ka Dhaba" without any certificate of registration. Both the witnesses of prosecution i.e. PW1 and PW2 have deposed that on 26.10.2007 at around 11.30 a.m. the accused was found running an eating house in the name and style of "Yadav Ka Dhaba" near Bhairon Mandir, New Delhi without any valid license. Even the accused has admitted in his statement recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. that he was running said dhaba without any license, though he said that he has closed the same now. Thus it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that on 26.10.2007 at around 11.30 a.m. the accused was running an eating house i.e. "Yadav ka Dhaba" near Bhairon Mandir, New Delhi without any valid license. Accordingly the accused is convicted for the offence U/Sec.28/112 Delhi Police Act, 1978.
(Announced in the open (NAVITA KUMARI) Court on 21.02.2012) MM, NEW DELHI DD No.5A of 26.10.2007 U/Sec. 28/112 D.P. Act P.S. Tilak Marg 21.02.2012 Present : Substitute APP for state. Accused Ramesh Chand Yadav in person.
Vide separate judgment accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 28/112 Delhi Police Act, 1978.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The Ld. Substitute APP has prayed for imparting maximum punishment. But the convict has prayed for lenient view by stating that he is an old man of 80 years of age and further that he had closed the dhaba in question almost two years back. So in view of these facts and circumstances the convict is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50/ in default simple imprisonment of 1 day. The SHO concerned is directed to verify if the dhaba in question is already closed. He is further directed to close the dhaba in question, if not already closed, and submit the report to this Court. Copy of this order be sent to SHO concerned for compliance.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/21.02.12