Delhi District Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... vs Sh. Satish on 1 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPTI DEVESH,
MUNICIPAL MAGISTRATE01, KKD, EAST, NEW DELHI
Challan No. 7572
U/s 417/421/397/430/461of DMC Act.
Zone City Zone
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi .............. Complainant
Versus
Sh. Satish,
S/o Late Sh. Lakhpat Rai,
R/o 1881, Haweli Jugal Kishore,
Chandini Chowk, Delhi110006 .............. Accused
Offence complained of U/s 417/421/397/430/461of DMC Act
Plea of accused Not guilty
Complaint filed on 18.04.2011
Final Arguments heard on 18.07.2013
Date of decision 01.07.2014
Decision Acquittal
J U D G M E N T
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2013 at 03:10 PM at 1881, Haweli Jugal Kishore, Chandini Chowk, Delhi110006 the accused was found running a Guest House under Insanitary and Unhygienic without having Municipal License and thus committed offence punishable U/s 417/421/397/430/461of DMC Act.
2. On filing of the challan cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. On appearance of the accused Notice U/s 251 Cr. PC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and Challan No. 7572 page no. 1 /5 contended that he had valid licence on the date of challan to run the Guest House in question and his application for renewal of licence was pending with MCD.
3. To prove its case MCD examined two witnesses, first Sh. Balbir Singh, Challaning inspector as CW1. It was submitted by the CW1 that on 27.02.2013 he visited at 1881 Haveli Jugal Kishore, Chandini Chowk, Delhi where he found that a Guest House was running in insanitary and unhygienic conditions, where he met with Mr. Satish and asked him to show the MPL licence to run the Guest House if he has the same. On that Mr. Satish told him that he has not having any MPL License. Thereafter the Inspector prepared the present Challan U/s 417/421/397/430/461of DMC Act, however, Mr. Satish refused to sign on the challan. Thereafter he submitted the challan with the AMP of concerned Zone. Sh. O.P. Singh, AMP was examined as CW2. It was submitted by him that all AMPs are authorized in their official capacity to forward the complaint as per standing order of commissioner of MCD dated 20.09.2012 which is Ex. CW2/1.
4. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating evidence along with exhibited documents were put to the accused wherein it was submitted by him that on the date of challan no MCD inspector had not visited at the premises in question. It is further submitted by him that his licence has not been renewed since March 2006 despite he had made applications every year for renewal of the same, however, MCD kept his application pending. Thereafter the case was fixed for DE. Mr. Ashok Kumar was examined as DW1 in which he reiterated that application for renewal of license was pending before the MCD and Challan No. 7572 page no. 2 /5 that he received no intimation from the MCD regarding rejection of his application. No other witness was examined and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
5. The main defences raised by the accused is that no inspector had visited at the premises in question on the date of challan or at anytime. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that MCD has not rejected or replied to his last application for renewal of license.
6. In the present matter there was no witness to the challan, and further, the challaning inspector did not get the challan signed by the accused. Infact, it is not written who had refused to sign on the challan. The fact that the challan filed by him is not bearing signature of the accused raise a clear doubt that the present challan was not prepared by the inspector at the spot. Furthermore, in absence of any independent witness to the challan, more doubt is created regarding the prosecution version of the challan being prepared at the spot.
7. The other defence of the accused is that he had applied for issuance of MPL License but the MCD did not decide his application, and rather without deciding his application made this false challan against him. In this regard, the testimony of CW1 does not inspire any confidence as on various occasions he has stated that he did not verify from the MCD records if MPL licence had been issued to the accused or not. Later on he corrected himself and stated that he verified the MCD records and found that the accused had a valid licence only till 2007. He also stated that the accused application for renewal had been rejected, however, he could not remember the date, month or year of rejection. He did not even bring any rejection letter in evidence to show conclusively that the licence application stood Challan No. 7572 page no. 3 /5 rejected. Further on perusal of documents filed by the accused in his evidence show that in all the communications between the MCD and the accused, the MCD has never stated conclusively that his renewal application stood rejected. The prosecution has stated that the application had rejected vide letter dated 20.09.2012, however, on perusal it is seem that the letter dated 20.09.2012 only states that on failure of the accused to pay mixed used charges, " you application for change of name and renewal of licence right from 200607 to 201213 may not be processes and hence may be rejected". Therefore it is clear even this letter did not actually reject the renewal application of the accused, but only informed him about the possible consequences of non payment of mixed used charges. Further vide RTI reply dated 11.01.2012 the MCD had informed the accused that his case file has been in possession of the building department of the MCD and therefore the Health department has not been able to process his renewal application any further. It is clears from these communications and the unsure testimony of CW1 that the MCD has never actually communicated to the accused that his renewal application was rejected. In view of this it stands to reason that the accused was hopeful of getting his licence renewed and therefore the present challan is not a valid challan. In support of his contention the accused has also relied upon the case of Nisar Ahmed v. State 1986 CC Cases 384 (HC), decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in which it has been noted that if the application for obtaining the license is pending, then it is not the case of failure to obtain the license. The said case is applicable to the facts of the present case also as without communicating rejection of his renewal application the MCD could not have prepared the present challan.
Challan No. 7572 page no. 4 /5
8. On the basis of above stated discussion it can be safely concluded that the MCD has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Satish, S/o Late Sh. Lakhpat Rai, R/o 1881, Haweli Jugal Kishore, Chandini Chowk, Delhi110006 stands acquitted of the offence U/s 417/421/397/430/461of DMC Act.
Announced in the open court
today i.e.01.07.2014 (DEEPTI DEVESH)
MM:KKD:DELHI:01.07.2014
Containing 05 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(DEEPTI DEVESH) MM:KKD:DELHI:01.07.2014 Challan No. 7572 page no. 5 /5