Delhi District Court
Challan No. 381733 Mcd vs . Rakesh Pandey Page No.1 Of 4 on 20 May, 2013
Challan No. 381733 MCD Vs. RAKESH PANDEY Page no.1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
MM(MUNICIPAL 01): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF DELHI ............. Complainant
Versus
Rakesh Pandey,
S/o Sh. Krishan Kant Pandey,
Proprietor of M/s Rajpath Motors,
R/o 5/23, Geeta Colony,
Delhi ............ Accused
COMPLAINT U/s 416/417/430/461 of DMC ACT
Offence complained of : U/s 416/417/430/461 of DMC Act
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Date of Challan : 21.11.2008
Final Arguments heard &
Concluded on : 10.05.2013
Date of decision of the case : 20.05.2013
Final order : Acquittal
J U D G M E N T
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2008 at 03:30 PM at Main Road, Geeta Colony, Delhi31 the accused was found running the trade of Petrol pump with the help of 15 K.W. Power in the name and style Rajpath Motors, thus committed an offence punishable U/s 416/417/430/461 of Challan No. 381733 MCD Vs. RAKESH PANDEY Page no.2 of 4 DMC Act 1957.
2. Consequent to the filing of the challan, accused appeared in the court. Notice under section 251 Cr. P.C was framed upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in its support examined three witnesses CW2 Sh. V.K. Goel, Deputy Law Officer, who had presented the challan before the Court being AMP. CW3 Sh. Lal Chand who had brought the challan book register showing the entry as per which the challan book was issued to the challaning inspector K.A. Anto. CW4 Sh. Jai Dev who had issued the challan book to the challaning inspector who also identified the signature of the challaning inspector on the challan. No other complainant witness was examined.
3. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C, wherein he admitted the running of petrol pump at main road Geeta Colony, Delhi31 in the name and style Rajpath Motors. However it is submitted by him that MCD licence is not required for running a petrol pump. It is further submitted by him that when he started the petrol pump he had applied for the licence but it is the practice of MCD not to issue licence to petrol pumps. It is also submitted that a petrol pump is set up as per the security norms prescribe by Delhi Police Rules and the Petroleum Act to ensure security and MCD is not equipped to suggest and ensure those security norms, hence MCD can not issue licence to a petrol pump. It is further submitted by the accused that he was not present at the site when the challan in question was made. Infact the challan in question does not bear his signature. It was also stated by the accused that he would lead defence evidence. Accused examined Sh. Radhey Shyam, Challan No. 381733 MCD Vs. RAKESH PANDEY Page no.3 of 4 Manager of the accused firm as DW1. Who exhibited a receipt whereby accused had applied for MCD licence on 23.03.1999 as Ex. DW1/1. DW1 had supported the defence of the accused as submitted by him in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC. It is also submitted by DW1 that no MCD inspector had visited the petrol pump on 21.11.2008. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments. I have heard both the parties and perused the file.
4. In the present matter the challaning inspector namely K.A. Anto has not been examined in evidence on the ground that he has left the job of the MCD. However, none of the witness examined by the MCD has submitted on record that Mr. K.A. Anto has retired or left the Job. Without such evidences this court can not assume that Mr. K.A. Anto has left the Job. Further even if it is assumed that he has left the job that does not means that he can not be brought for leading evidence. Since challaning inspector K.A. Anto was the best witness as he had made the challan and visited the site. Since the best witness has not been examined without apparent reason which may be fatal to the prosecution case.
5. Further DW1 has submitted in his statement that no MCD inspector had visited the petrol pump on 21.11.2008 i.e. the date of challan. Accused has also submitted in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC that he was not present at the site when the challan was prepared. Though the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC has accepted that he was running a petrol pump without MPL licence on 21.11.2008 at 03:00 PM. However this acceptance on the part of the accused is not enough to convict him as the prosecution case has to stand on its own legs. Further the admission of the Challan No. 381733 MCD Vs. RAKESH PANDEY Page no.4 of 4 accused is that much that he was running a petrol pump at the given site but this acceptance does not mean that a challan was made on that day.
6. Thus due to non examining the best witness i.e. the challaning inspector the case of the complainant can not be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Thus, the accused Rakesh Pandey, S/o Sh. Krishan Kant Pandey, Proprietor of M/s Rajpath Motors, R/o 5/23, Geeta Colony, Delhi is hereby acquitted for the offense U/s 416/417/430/461 DMC.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 20.05.2013 (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
MM:KKD:DELHI:20.05.2013
Containing 4 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM:KKD:DELHI:20.05.2013