Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Soni vs The State on 27 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY GARG-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 540/2023
CNR No. DLND01-2130-2023
Sh. Ashok Kumar Soni
S/o Sh. Ram Singh Soni
R/o Khasra No. 357/2, Soni Farm House
Village Ghitorni
New Delhi-110030.
Also at : Chamber No. 241, Second Floor
Lawyers Block, Saket Courts Complex
New Delhi-110 017. ...... Petitioner
Versus
State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 27.07.2023.
Date of hearing arguments : 20.09.2023
Date of order : 27.09.2023
Appearances:
Petitioner in person with Ms. Zeba Parveen, Ld. Counsel.
Sh. Ravindra Kr. Khandelwal, Ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent.
ORDER:
1. Vide this petition, the order impugned is dated 09.06.2023 of Ld. MM-01, PHC, New Delhi, vide which, the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the petitioner/accused application under Section 258 of Cr.PC seeking discharge of the accused being barred by Section 471 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (in short "DMC Act").
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner/accused that a complaint dated 29.09.2020 was filed against him by Dy. Commissioner, SDMC, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi at Crl. Revision No.540/2023 Ashok Kumar Soni v State Page 1 of 6 PS Vasant Kunj (South) New Delhi, which resulted in registration of an FIR no. 754/2020 under Section 466-A of DMC Act at PS Vasant Kunj (South). After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 15.06.2021 i.e. on 257th day since the date of complaint. It is stated that as per Section 471 of DMC Act, the charge-sheet had to be filed within a period of six months from the date of the commission of such offence or from the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the knowledge of the complainant and the same was also taken note of by the Ld. Magistrate, thereby notice was not issued to the accused until 15.06.2021 as apparent from the order dated 09.09.2021 of the Ld. Trial Court. Section 471 of DMC Act clearly bars the cognizance of an offence after the period of six months from the date when the commission of the offence was brought to the notice of the complainant. Hence, the Ld. Magistrate ought not to take cognizance of the offence, since in the instant case the charge-sheet is not filed within a period of 6 months from the date of alleged commission of offence. Hence, the complaint filed before the Ld. Trial Court is time barred and there is no provision of condonation of delay in the DMC Act. However, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application relying on erroneous and incorrect interpretation of Section 471 of DMC Act and in disregard of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Ravindra Kumar Mahindra MANU/DE/0385/1990.
3. For better appreciation of facts, the relevant para no.9 of the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 is reproduced as Crl. Revision No.540/2023 Ashok Kumar Soni v State Page 2 of 6 follows :-
"9. Perusal of the provision also reveals that the violation noticed by the Corporation is to be filed as a complaint before the Magistrate. As a matter of practice, the prosecution in these cases is instituted by filing a complaint before the concerned police station followed by a final report under Section 173 Cr.PC before the Court. There is no direct complaint before the Magistrate in these cases and thus, if the word complaint, as used in Section 471 DMC Act, is to be given a logical meaning, it would refer to the complaint made by the Corporation before the concerned Police Station for the purpose of investigation. Thus, the period of limitation is to be seen in context of the complaint filed by the Corporation before the concerned Police Station. Such complaint must be filed within six months from the date of commission of offence or from the date of knowledge."
4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 inter alia on the grounds that the same is bad in law being violative to the provision of DMC Act. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Ravindra Kumar Mahindra MANU/DE/0385/1990 in its right prospective. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the charge-sheet in question is filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the DMC Act. The Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order in a hasty manner or that it did not exercise the powers vested in a judicious manner and to advance justice.
5. Respondent/State has vehemently contested this petition, however, did not file any reply on record.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per Section 471 of DMC Act, the charge-sheet has to be filed within six months from the date of commission of the offence, which was not done by the police, hence, his application to drop Crl. Revision No.540/2023 Ashok Kumar Soni v State Page 3 of 6 the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 258 Cr.PC was wrongly dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Add. PP for the State has submitted that the interpretation given by the Ld. Trial Court to the provision of Section 471 of DRC Act should be adhered to being more practical and advancing the cause of justice.
8. Section 471 of DMC Act provides limitation of time for prosecution. This section is as follows :-
"Section 471. Limitation of time for prosecution - No person shall be liable to punishment for any offence against this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law made thereunder, unless complaint of such offence is made before a municipal magistrate within six months next after -
(a) the date of the commission of such offence, or
(b) the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the complainant."
9. The interpretation of Section 471 DMC Act was considered and done by our Hon'ble High Court in Meenakshi Rawal v State and Ors. MANU/DE/2032/2008. The relevant para nos. 6&7 are reproduced as follow :-
"6. Thus, it is clear that the period of limitation for filing a complaint for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner is six months after the date of the commission of such offence or the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the complainant.
7. The applicability of the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 471 of the DMC Act came up for consideration in various cases before this Court. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ravindra Kumar Mahindra - 1991 Crl. Law Journal 2630. The provisions of Section 471 were interpreted as follows:
"The provision clearly sets out the scope. Even though section 466A does not make certain offences under the DMC Act cognizable and has permitted their investigation to be done as if these offences were cognizable. The offences do not cease to be offences under the DMC Act and Section 471 clearly lays down Crl. Revision No.540/2023 Ashok Kumar Soni v State Page 4 of 6 the period of limitation within which action for offences under the DMC Act shall be initiated. It, therefore, clearly bars prosecution beyond a period of six months from the date of the commission of the offence or from the date when the existence of such offence was brought to the notice of the complainant. In our view, therefore, section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable as the offences under the DMC Act will be covered by the provision regarding limitation made in the Act itself."
10. Coming to the facts of the present case, complaint was made by the Dy. Commissioner, SDMC, Najafgarh, New Delhi at PS Vasant Kunj (South) New Delhi, on 29.09.2020 but charge-sheet was filed in the court by the SHO on 15.06.2021 i.e. after a gap of more than nine months. The police report has not explained any cogent reason for delayed filing of the charge- sheet beyond the purview of six months as provided under Section 471 of DMC Act.
11. The impugned order is not of cognizance of being taken and framing of accusation under Section 251 Cr.PC by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide impugned order, application under Section 258 Cr.PC moved by the petitioner for stopping of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. For better appreciation of the facts, Section 258 of Cr.PC is reproduced as follows :-
"258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases. In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, Crl. Revision No.540/2023 Ashok Kumar Soni v State Page 5 of 6 release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge."
12. The charge-sheet filed by the police against the petitioners is under Section 466-A of DMC Act. Section 332 of the Act provides prohibition of building without sanction. Section 461 of the Act provides the punishment for certain offences. As per Schedule 12 of DMC Act, punishment provided for Section 332 is simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both. The offence under Section 332 of DMC Act is summon-triable offence.
13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it was a fit case to stop the proceedings as provided under Section 258 Cr.PC. The impugned order dated 09.06.2023 is set aside. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused stand stopped as per Section 258 of Cr.PC.
14. TCR along with the copy of the order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY GARG - SANJAY GARG - I I
Date: 2023.09.27 13:36:36 +0530
Announced in the open Court (SANJAY GARG-I)
th
on 27 September, 2023 Principal District & Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Crl. Revision No.540/2023 Ashok Kumar Soni v State Page 6 of 6